Video: *OA Isn't Rocket Science* http://timswww.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/video-stevan-harnad-oa-isnt-rocket.html
(On the topic of versions, see here<https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=versions+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg>, and the Green OA Self-Archiving FAQ #23<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#23.Version> ) On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Graham Triggs <[email protected]>wrote: > On 29 January 2014 13:43, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote: > >> (*5*) Dekker apparently misunderstands that all peer-reviewed journal >> articles are peer-reviewed, whether Gold or Green. >> >> > "Researchers will have to go through the peer review process whilst at the > same time publishing another version in a local repository." > > "What's more, the quality of the publications is also unclear: especially > for users outside the scientific world, it will be hard to discern the > status of quality insurance of all these local repositories." > > I guess you can take that any way you want, but I don't see any statement > about articles in repositories not being peer-reviewed. > > What there is, is a question mark about what the version in the repository > actually represents - it could be the publisher's version, it could be the > author's copy following peer-review, it could be a version before any > peer-review changes were made. > > Apart from the publisher's PDF, you've probably only got an > author-provided statement as to what the version is, if that. What > editorial / review processes has the repository gone through? There are > certainly repositories out there that do not review at all the author > submission, and act later to remove content that shouldn't have been posted > if they are alerted to it. > > Publisher's will check to see if an author has posted a version they were > not entitled to, but if the posting doesn't breach copyright, who is > checking that it has been clearly and correctly described? > > So, what Dekker says is not "the Green article may not be peer-reviewed", > but asks "how do we know that it represents the peer-reviewed material". > When repositories do not make it clear to people downloading papers what > process of review the deposit went through, that's not an unreasonable > question to ask. > > G > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
