Stevan This approach does not work. Please see interspersed. I think we need more sophisticated and nuanced comments. Best wishes
Arthur Sale Tasmania, Australia -----Original Message----- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Wednesday, 18 January 2012 2:50 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Research Works Act & AAP Members Sandy Thatcher wrote onLibLicense-L Discussion Forum: > a better approach... would be to require any government agency that > funds research to require... a final report... > to be posted immediately upon acceptance... openly accessible to all The primary intended users of refereed research articles are researchers; A "final report" is not what they need, and it's not what OA is about: the refereed final draft is. [Arthur] Who knows what you are going on about unless they saw the onLibLicense-L post? Not me. Your quoted pieces from Sandy Thatcher seem totally reasonable. The agency should require in the final report acquitting the grant an accounting of when and where the author(s) made their research OA. Why not? It is a sensible idea. The agency can see whether their requirements actually worked and take action (like reducing grants to that institution) if it didn't. This is just plain ordinary mandatory sense. Taking follow-up action is necessary, otherwise we are in a situation like mandating that everyone should wash their hands after having been to the toilet. What is the compliance rate? I trust it is good in hospitals, but elsewhere? How was this achieved? Not by logic! > this approach is preferable because, unlike the current NIH > policy, (1) it would make the research results immediately available > (not after a 12-month delay... What's needed immediately is the refereed research. What would be preferable would be no 12-month delay... [Arthur] I could say exactly the same as above. If you are going to comment on someone else's post, please be clear instead of obfuscatory. The quote suggests that Sandy Thatcher made a point, but we aren't told what it was. > (2) it would > make the results available in the exact form in which they were > written up and not in the Green OA version A " final report" is not the "exact form" in which results were written up: the author's final, refereed draft (Green OA) is. [Arthur] Sorry, you simply ignore reality while being logically and irrelevantly correct. Authors do not treat their final draft as the expression of the research - they reserve this status for the Version of Record (published form). The Accepted Manuscript is a second-best. And the AM is not Green OA if I understood you right - Green OA is defined as author-OA as opposed to publisher-OA (Gold or hybrid) > citation of a final report is a preferable form of scholarship than > citation of a preliminary version of an article, which may differ in > significant respects from the archival version. What researchers use and cite is the refereed article. [Arthur] Confusing, but you are confusing three things here or obfuscating with terminology. What a researcher/author cites is the Version of Record. What an researcher/author tends to disseminate and use in teaching and in discussion with colleagues is the Version of Record. What a viewer/reader/researcher (particularly in the third world) wants is anything. The VoR is best, but the AM is nearly as good. An earlier draft is useful too. I quite agree with your reaction to the assertion that the archival version (VoR) of an article might be significantly different from the AM. This is so rare as to merit controversy when it occurs and a disagreement with the author(s) (apart from rewriting of non-English speakers' drafts). Publishers add little value between the AM to get to the VoR. > I am not sure why people are claiming that publishers like Elsevier, > by supporting the Research Works Act, are opposed to the dissemination > of knowledge. Many AAP-member publishers, including Elsevier (and Penn > State Press), permit authors of articles in the journals they publish > to post Green OA versions on their institutional or personal web > sites. And RWA would prevent their funders from requiring them to do it. [Arthur] Totally agree. And that would cripple Green OA MANDATES. This Act is targeted at MANDATES. Stevan Harnad [Arthur] Arthur Sale Tasmania. Australia _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
