<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><div>From: [identity deleted]<br><div><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">I've been tasked with chairing the OA working group at [deleted] and have found</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">your blogs and articles incredibly helpful in trying to plot a way through the mess</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">created by Finch/RCUK. I've been trying to push the University in the Green OA</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">direction you have been recommending - that is, [depositing the] accepted versions</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">[in] the institutional repository.</div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"> </div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">Yesterday a lengthy email appeared in my inbox, an extract from which is reproduced</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">below. It seems that Wiley are trying to forbid publication of the accepted version in</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">an institutional repository (I think that they mean 'accepted version' in the last but one</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">sentence, not 'submitted version'). Can they do this if the version published in the</div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">repository is not in their typeface etc? </div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"> </div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">Any help you can give would be welcome.</div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"> </div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><b>Green OA: submitted version v accepted version</b></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">I think that more understanding needs to be promoted about the difference between</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">Green OA with the submitted version [preprint] and with the accepted version and the unsuitability</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">of the former in some circumstances. I have a co-authored article coming out with [deleted],</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">published by Wiley. The research was not RCUK-funded. Wiley's policy for this journal is</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">that the only Green OA they will permit is making available the submitted (pre-refereed)</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">version of the article [preprint]. This is obviously completely pointless as the article has changed</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">significantly as a result of the referees' reports. We anticipate that there will be significant</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"> public interest in the article... and so <b>we need to go Gold so that it is not hidden from</b></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small"><b>most of the public, journalists etc behind a subscription paywall</b>. I know that there are plenty</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">of other situations where (submitted version) [preprint] is fine - effectively it is putting a draft</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">out there for comments. However, that does not apply to our paper. Wiley have told us that</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">the Green OA [refereed, accepted postprint] option is not open to us. My sense of it is that those who</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">are pro-Green don't yet appreciate sufficiently that the only version,,, that can be</div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small">available at times can be completely unsuitable.</div></div></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><div><br></div><div>Dear [deleted],</div><div><br></div><div>Many thanks for your kind words about my (unheeded) words…</div><div><br></div><div>Wiley, like other formerly Green-friendly publishers, are now deliberately putting up an almost </div><div>impenetrable smokescreen of variants and details in their OA policy in order to confuse and deter authors. </div><div><br></div><div>This is all with the unwitting collaboration of funders, who themselves adopt vague, varied and mutually </div><div>contradictoryOA policies, institutional IP “specialists” who give absurd and arbitrary “legal” advice, and </div><div>SHERPA/Romeo, which slavishly canonizes and formally publicizes publishers’ every arbitrary whim as </div><div>if it made sense and desperately needed to be known and heeded by one and all.</div><div><br></div><div>I’ve responded to every single subterfuge many a time, but here it is again:</div><div><br></div></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><i>(1) The distinction between authors' “personal website” and their “institutional repository” is bogus. Ignore it.</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>(2) Wiley (still) states that there is no OA embargo on the author’s refereed, accepted final draft. </i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>(3) Whenever minded to be intimidated by publisher FUD or compliant with an OA embargo, deposit the final </i></div><div><div><i>refereed, revised, revised, accepted final draft immediately on acceptance for publication anyway, set access </i></div><div><i>as restricted-access instead of OA, </i><i>and rely on the repository’s copy-request Button </i><i>(one click from the requestor, </i></div><div><i>one click from the author) </i><i>to provide almost-OA till the embargo elapses, </i><i>the FUD implodes, or </i></div><div><i>authors/funders/institutions/IP-experts/Sherpa-Romeo </i><i>come to their senses — whichever comes first.</i></div></div></blockquote><div><div><i><br></i></div><div>This is what the sensible authors of the 973,909 preprints<i> and postprints</i> deposited and made immediately OA in <a href="http://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions">Arxiv</a></div><div>(for example) have been doing, unchallenged, since 1991, without begging the leave of anyone. The flurry of FUD </div><div>since obligingly floated elsewhere has been inspired purely by those who did not have the sense to do likewise.</div><div><br></div><div>Dixit,</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></body></html>