[ The following text is in the "utf-8" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
The issue of the pdf has been debated a lot before. The point is
that, in cases when someone refers to a part of an article or quotes
from an article, it is important to know the page number. Not having
the publisher's pdf simply makes finding the right page more
difficult for the person who wants to add a specific reference and
who does not have access to the publisher's version. Undoubtedly,
there are workarounds, but they too are complicated and slow down the
work. To use a distinction brought forth in the past by Stevan
Harnad, that between quoting and citing, there are many situations
where simply citing the article is enough (i.e. simply indicating the
beginning and end pages of the article as given by any bibliographic
tool).
All these little pesky details that vary from publisher to publisher
contribute to building a confusing picture that translates into
inertia on the side of researchers already pressed for time. In my
opinion, they have been gradually recognized by some publishers as
effective ways to slow down the self-archiving side of Open Access.
For the rest, I fully accept our colleague's evaluation of copy
editing as a dying art. For example, do not use the Latin phrase
"annus mirabilis" as I did with IOS a few years ago, or you may run
the risk of finding it returned to you as "anus mirabilis"...
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le mercredi 03 décembre 2008 à 12:15 +0000, C.J.Smith a écrit :
On 02 December 2008 18:31 Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
"Commercial presses will do all they can to keep
self-archiving at some artisanal, confusing level while
lobbying like mad wherever they can (this means
governmental agencies such as NIH and other similar
agencies). The artisanal dimension I am talking about
refers to constraints such as preventing the use of the
publisher's pdf."
Why does it matter that, on the whole, publishers
restrict the use of the final PDF? I would argue that the
most value a publisher adds is during the peer review
process, not in the post-acceptance production processes
(copyediting, typesetting and proofreading) and therefore
we should be grateful that the peer-reviewed
(value-added) version is available for self-archiving.
Ok, so the final version looks nicer, but the technical
content is there - surely this is the most important
thing?
(Copyediting is a dying trade, with many of the large
commercial publishers outsourcing this to companies
operating from non-native English-speaking countries that
can offer cheap prices for a `full supplier service'. A
lot of the pride that used to exist in making the final
version of a paper consistent and accurate has been lost
in recent years as publishers seek to drive down costs.
For example, it always used to be the case that the proof
of a paper would be sent to both the author and an
independent freelance proofreader for checking, with the
corrections collated before publication. Many publishers
no longer use freelance proofreaders, putting the onus
entirely on the author to proofread their paper. This is
all very well if the author is a native English speaker;
but if not, and the paper has been copyedited by a
non-native English-speaker beforehand, what you end up
with is a final version of a paper that has had very
little value added to it over and above the final
accepted manuscript version).
Jean-Claude's point was that having to explain to authors
they can only deposit a particular version of their paper
is a constraint, imposed the policies of publishers,
aimed at slowing down the development of Green OA.
Whether or not this is true, there is, in my opinion, a
simple solution that goes a long way towards removing
this constraint:
When advocating your repository to your academics, your
message should simply be `always provide your final
accepted peer-reviewed manuscript'. If it then transpires
that it is one of those rare occasions when the published
version can be used, library staff can replace it; if an
embargo is needed, library staff can add it; if the full
text can't be used at all, library staff can discard it,
or lock it. I don't believe this message is difficult to
understand. Ok, you could argue that having to deliver
this message in the first place is in itself a
constraint, but as long as the message is simple it
should eventually prevail.
Colin Smith
Research Repository Manager
Open Research Online (ORO)
Open University Library
Walton Hall
Milton Keynes
MK7 6AA
Tel: +44(0)1908 332971
Email: c.j.smith_at_open.ac.uk
http://oro.open.ac.uk
____________________________________________________________________________
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
[mailto:AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG]
On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Guédon
Sent: 02 December 2008 18:31
To:
AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
Subject: Re: Green Angels and OA Extremists
I support Michael's analysis.
Commercial presses will do all they can to keep
self-archiving at some artisanal, confusing level while
lobbying like mad wherever they can (this means
governmental agencies such as NIH and other similar
agencies). The artisanal dimension I am talking about
refers to constraints such as preventing the use of the
publisher's pdf. Making it difficult for libraries to
stock their own IR's with the articles of their faculty
in some bulk fashion is another way to slow down
archiving. When publishers impose their own particular
constraints on self-archiving, they make things more
confusing for the researchers, and this slows down
progress. In short, they act in such a way that they
cannot be directly and clearly faulted for opposing OA,
but they make sure progress will be slow, difficult,
reversible and temporary. While allowing self-archiving
is indeed a step forward, it is accompanied by so many
side issues that the step is small, hesitant, and not
always pointed in the right direction.
Of course, one can always invent some work around, add
yet another button, or whatever, but this ends up making
things only a little more complex and a little more
confusing for the average researcher and it only
reinforces the elements of confusion sought by at least
some of the publishers.
In short, it is a very clever strategy.
To achieve OA, we do need self-archiving, all the
difficulties thrown into its path by publishers
notwithstanding, including the devious strategies I just
referred to. But we also need OA publishing. Not to say
that OA publishing should come before self-archiving, but
to point out a very simple fact: a pincer strategy on the
scientific communication system is better than a strategy
based on a single method. OA needs self-archiving, but it
also needs some reform in scientific publishing. Rather
than opposing green and gold strategies, it is better to
see how they can support each other.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le mardi 02 décembre 2008 à 07:47 -0800, Michael Eisen a
écrit :
Les Carr wrote:
>
> HAVING SAID THAT, the library is in no way adverse to finding
> mechanisms that assist individuals and ease their tasks, and I guess
> that Elsevier can have no objections to that either! How about a
> notification email to be sent to authors of "In Press" papers that
> contains a "Deposit this paper" button that initiates the user's
> deposit workflow on the ScienceDirect Submitted Manuscript PDF.
>
You guys are such suckers. OF COURSE Elsevier can have objections to
libraries assisting individuals in self-archiving their work, because
Elsevier does not want self archiving to succeed! What do they have to
do to actually prove this to you? Stevan, Les and others seem to think
that Karen Hunter's recent email was some kind of bureaucratic error,
rather than realize it for what it clearly is - a direct statement
from Elsevier that they do not want self-archiving to actually take
off. It's a ploy (an apparently successful ploy) on their part to
diffuse moves towards effective universal open access by a) making
them seem like good guys and b) fostering the illusion that we can
have universal green OA without altering the economics of publishing.
And Stevan, rather than the typical retort about how green OA can be
achieved now, with a few keystrokes, can you please instead explain
how the policy statement from your friends at Elsevier does not
indicate that they are really opposed to real OA.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Université de Montréal
---------------------------------
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC
000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a
charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
Jean-Claude Guédon
Université de Montréal
Received on Wed Dec 03 2008 - 19:45:36 GMT