Re: Eprint versions and removals

From: Ted Bergstrom <>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 09:29:06 +0100

I have been wondering about the same issue that concerns Barbara Quint
in the message quoted below. It seems to me much more satisfactory if
an open archive contains an exact copy of the publisher's pdf version.

Two good reasons for allowing this approach are accuracy of the
scholarly record and convenience for authors.

It seems to me that publishers should be given a stronger incentive
to permit putting the publisher's pdf in their institutional archive.
At least one commercial publisher already allows this, so it is not
beyond possibilities that others could be induced to. Wouldn't it be a
good idea for Sherpa and the scholarly community to distinguish
between "full green" publishers who do allow self-archiving the
pulisher's pdf version, and "pale green" for those who allow the
author to prepare her own pdf version of the final copy?

If self-archiving does catch on, authors are likely to find it important
that they can archive exact copies of their final version. Accordingly,
publishers who want to attract good authors will be under some pressure
to accommodate this desire. Might it also be a good idea for archives
to develop a convention that makes it clear when an archived copy is an
exact replica of the published version?

Ted Bergstrom

>Do the "green light" publishers send digital copies back to the authors?
> [Some give the green light for the author to use the publisher's
> PDF version, others only to use the author's own digital versioni.]
>As an editor, I'm assuming that some of the text has been changed as it
>goes through the editorial process.
> [Correct, especially from unrefereed preprint to refereed postprint.]
>So are the self-archives of the edited "final" versions or of the author's
>initial submissions?
> [If the green light is for the refereed, edited final version,
> that is what is self-archived; otherwise the preprint plus
> corrections.]
>Or would there be more than one version, e.g. an author's edition (like
>a director's cut video) that includes portions that didn't appear in the
>"printed" article as well as the published one?
> [Authors can self-archive all signitificant stages of their work,
> including pospublication corrections, updates and enhancements.
> The essential target of OA, though, is contents of the peer-reviewed
> final draft.]
>>that's what i thought. a librarian's/archivist's nightmare.-- bq
>>[But a researcher's dream. -- SH]
Received on Tue Aug 10 2004 - 09:29:06 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:47:33 GMT