References: <200909150629161.SM03840@[64.239.149.125]> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]> A<[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]
! local> <[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Oct 2009 19:02:10.0026 (UTC) FILETIME=[29B35CA0:01CA4E93]
On 16-Oct-09 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [CS] wrote:
> CS: [Contrary to] the claim that there the differences
> between the last version of a paper sent in by the author and the
> paper that appears in the journal are always "completely trivial"
> ...many of the articles I've been involved with, as
> author or as journal editor, have had editorial changes I'd
> regard as important, not as trivial. Some of them have been
> improvements.
Any sensible author will of course incorporate into his public
postprint (final revised draft) any nontrivial correction resulting
from either refereeing or editing/copy-editing. (I wouldn't bother
transferring changes of "which" to "that" but reference corrections,
grammatical corrections and any [rarissimum] corrigendum of fact will
certainly be incorporated into the version the author is providing
free for one and all.)
The point is that *none of this requires the publisher's PDF*, hence
it is a colossal strategic and practical error to balk at making the
postprint OA now (or at mandating that it be made OA now) and hold out
instead for a day when the publisher's PDF can and will be available
online for free.
Whenever this undying issue of postprint vs. PDF arises, the very same
nonsequiturs keep being raised. So I am under no illusions when I say,
again, and again once and for all: OA is about *access to research*,
and access to the postprint is infinitely preferable and more
beneficial to the progress of research than the perils of PDF/
postprint discrepancies that those who keep misunderstanding what is
really at stake keep banging on about instead.
Harrumph,
Ezekiel
>> On 5-Oct 09 Kuil, van der Annemiek [AK] wrote:
>>> AK: Apparently there are differences between countries (although
>>> acadamia goes beyond borders) and therefore it is difficult to
>>> generalise and say that ....
>>>
>>>> SH: "(4) The difference between the publisher's PDF and the
>>>> author's self-archived final refereed, revised draft are
>>>> completely trivial. This is not something a researcher would
>>>> worry about. Researchers are worried about access denial, not PDF."
>>>
>>> AK: ... this is certainly not the case in the Netherlands. ..
>
> On 5 Oct 2009, at 07:11 , Stevan Harnad [SH] wrote:
>> SH: This fundamental misunderstanding has arisen, and been
>> discussed, many times before.
>>
>> There are no differences whatsoever among researchers -- either in
>> terms of country or in terms of discipline -- when one puts the
>> question correctly (i.e., in terms of actual access needs,
>> conditions and contingencies today, rather than some other ideal
>> contingency):
>> ...
>> CORRECT (OPEN-ACCESS-RELEVANT) WAY TO PUT THE QUESTION:
>>
>> -- CORRECT USER VERSION: If you have no access to the published
>> PDF, would you rather have access to the author's self-archived
>> final refereed draft (postprint), or no access at all?
>>
>> -- CORRECT AUTHOR VERSION: If they have no access to the published
>> PDF, would you rather users have access to your self-archived final
>> refereed postprint, or no access at all?
>
> CS: Those are certainly interesting and useful questions to ask, and
> the answers I'd expect them to get certainly would tend to support
> the kind of Green OA Steven Harnad advocates.
>
> But they don't seem to support the claim that there the differences
> between the last version of a paper sent in by the author and the
> paper that appears in the journal are always "completely trivial."
>
> Certainly many of the articles I've been involved with, as
> author or as journal editor, have had editorial changes I'd
> regard as important, not as trivial. Some of them have been
> improvements.
|