Elsevier's (or at least Tom Reller's) response is as expected, though it does
show an apparent – mistaken IMO – belief in the idea that a 'final' manuscript
is inferior to the published version of an article. Much inferior, actually,
given that the published version purports to justify the difference in cost to
the reader wishing to access the article. My experience – though by definition
limited, of course – is that the difference between final manuscript and
published article is mostly minor in terms of content, and mainly one of
appearance. If we look beyond content, there is often a difference in
findability, usability (e.g. for TDM) and functionality (e.g. links and
enhancements). For the professional end-user, my contention is that those
differences in usability and functionality are much more important than any
slight differences in content (which, if present at all, are mostly of a
linguistic nature, not a scientific one).
So why don't subscription publishers use that distinction in their policies and
provide a simple, human-readable-only version freely, on their own web sites
(findability, transparency as regards usage), while keeping the fully
functional, machine-readable version for the professional scientist
(power-user) covered by subscription pay-walls? Not quite the same as true open
access, clearly. That is, not as good as 'gold' (be it supported by APCs or
subsidies). But neither is 'green' with its fragmented nature, often low
functionality (only simple PDFs, no TDM), often embargoed, etc. Making a
distinction with regard to access on the real basis of functionality
differences instead of the illusory basis of content differences may be a
compromise more meaningful for authors on the one hand (visibility) and
incidental readers outside of academia on the other ('ocular' access).
I see 'green' open access as an awkward compromise (providing open access while
keeping subscriptions in place), and what I'm proposing here would take away at
least some of that awkwardness (the fragmented nature of 'green'). It should
not hurt the publisher more than free access to the accepted final manuscript
in repositories does, which they seem to accept.
Obviously, publishing systems that provide immediate and full open access to
fully functional versions at the point of publication ('gold') don't need this
compromise, and are to be preferred.
Some more thoughts on this here:
http://theparachute.blogspot.nl/2013/12/lo-fun-and-hi-fun.html
Jan Velterop
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Stevan Harnad <[email protected]>
> Subject: Institutions: Ignore Elsevier Take-Down Notices (and Mandate
> Immediate-Deposit)
> Date: 20 December 2013 07:17:37 CET
> To: [email protected]
> Reply-To: Stevan Harnad <[email protected]>
>
> Re: http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/19/elsevier/ (Elsevier Take-Down Notice to
> Harvard)
>
> See Exchange on Elsevier Website:
> http://www.elsevier.com/connect/a-comment-on-takedown-notices
>
> December 17, 2013 at 9:05 pm
> Stevan Harnad: Tom, I wonder if it would be possible to drop the double-talk
> and answer a simple question: Do or do not Elsevier authors retain the right
> to make their peer-reviewed final drafts on their own institutional websites
> immediately, with no embargo? Just a Yes or No, please… Stevan
>
> December 18, 2013 at 2:36 pm
> Tom Reller: Hello Dr. Harnad. I don’t agree with your characterization of our
> explanation here, but nevertheless as requested, there is a simple answer to
> your question – yes. Thank you.
>
> December 20, 2013
> Stevan Harnad: Tom, thank you. Then I suggest that the institutions of
> Elsevier authors ignore the Elsevier take-down notices (and also adopt an
> immediate-deposit mandate that is immune to all publisher take-down notices
> by requiring immediate deposit, whether or not access to the
> immediate-deposit is made immediately OA)… Stevan
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
