On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:32 PM, David Goodman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Sherpa is correct. For most people, the goal of OA is full access to the
> definitive version. it means the final Published version, for nothing else
> is ambiguously the article, and anything less is a compromise. Perhaps a
> necessary compromise for the moment, but not the goal. The coloring should
> make that distinction. The practical reason is to encourage the publishers
> to make the full commitment, and not stop with the compromise as if they had
> done everything that is desirable.
David Goodman has unfortunately posted a non-sequitur. The SHERPA
Romeo color coding has nothing whatsoever to do with the distinction
between the author's refereed Final Draft and the publisher's
definitive Version of Record.
Both the author's refereed final draft and the publisher's definitive
version of record are defined (by the BOAI FAQ, by mandating
institutions and funders, and by SHERPA) as "postprints" -- which
means any version beginning with the refereed final draft and onward.
This is in contract to "preprints" which are defined as any draft
prior the refereed, accepted version:
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#What-is-Eprint
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#What-self-archive
The target of Green OA self-archiving mandates is the postprint -- not
necessarily the publisher's version of record, but a final refereed
version. The reason the final refereed draft is specified as the
default version to self-archive is that it has far fewer publisher
restrictions on it -- far more publishers endorse the immediate
self-archiving of the author's final refereed draft, but not the
publisher's version of record.
Currently, SHERPA color-codes all publishers who endorse the immediate
OA self-archiving of a postprint (whether the author's final draft or
the publisher's definitive version) as "GREEN" if the publisher *also*
endorses the self-archiving of the unrefereed preprint, and as "BLUE"
if the publisher only endorse the self-archiving of the posptrint, but
not the preprint.
It is this coding -- which has the majority of the publishers that
endorse immediate GREEN OA self-archiving (of the postprint)
confusingly coded as *BLUE* instead of GREEN -- that I was pleading
with SHERPA to fix. Nothing to do with the postprint version
distinction David is defending.
But let me nevertheless answer David's point that "For most people,
the goal of OA is full access to the definitive… final Published
version… anything less is a compromise. Perhaps a necessary compromise
for the moment, but not the goal."
I am not sure who David has in mind by "most people". But if it is
active researchers today, then their goal is far more specific: Today,
any journal article is accessible only to those researchers whose
institutions can afford to subscribe to the journal in which the
article was published. The goal is to make all journal articles
accessible to all potential users online, not just the lucky ones
whose institutions can subscribe.
Now if you ask researchers which version they would "prefer" to have
freely accessible to all potential users, they will reply: "the
definitive final Published version." (So would I!)
But that is not the right question. It is like asking people what food
they would prefer to have freely accessible to all: They might well
reply "organic nouvelle cuisine." But if you instead ask them the
right question -- "Would you rather have the author's refereed final
draft or no access at all" -- they will of course overwhelmingly
prefer the final draft, just as those who are starving will
overwhelming prefer a square meal over no food at all.
Now, if you are asking librarians, rather than researchers, you might
get a different answer, because librarians are traditionally concerned
with providing the definitive final Published version for their users.
But the relevant librarians here are the ones whose institutions
cannot afford to subscribe to the definitive final Published version.
And OA is not about librarians ideal wish-lists but about today's
researchers' immediate and urgent usage needs. Hence the "compromise"
on the author's draft is indeed a necessary one, unless David has a
practical alternative in mind that will get the definitive versions
rather than the author's version self-archived. (Or is this yet
another plea to keep waiting for Gold OA? But what should researchers
eat in the meanwhile, brioche?)
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#31.Waiting
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#23.Version
Last point: If we are polling researchers on which versions they would
"ideally" prefer (rather than whether they would rather have the
author's draft or nothing at all, when they are denied subscription
access), let us remember that most researchers are still not even
bothering to provide OA to their final drafts, let alone the
definitive versions. That's why Green OA self-archiving mandates have
proved necessary.
So much for the gap between precept and practise.
Moral of the Story: If you don't want to keep waiting for OA for yet
another decade, grasp what is already within reach (mandating
self-archiving of all final drafts) instead of over-reaching for what
is not, and continuing to get nothing. That's not a "compromise": it's
OA. Holding out instead for something even better, in contrast, is
just extending the lease on the status quo.
http://bit.ly/OAverReaching
http://bit.ly/PDFetish
Amen
Stevan Harnad
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> ***Apologies for Cross-posting***
>>
>> [Hyperlinked version with figures is at:
>> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/833-guid.html
>>
>> Across the eight years since its launch in 2003, SHERPA Romeo's
>> importance and value as a resource have been steadily increasing. The
>> most recently announced upgrade covers 18,000 journals and is (1) More
>> up to Date, with (2) More Accurate Journal Level Searching, (3) More
>> Search Options, (4) Electronic ISSNs, and (5) Faster Performance.
>>
>> In addition to congratulating SHERPA Romeo, let me use this occasion
>> to repeat the plea I made eight years ago to adjust the colour code to
>> provide the information that users need the most (and at the same time
>> bring the colour coding in line with the terminology that has since
>> gained wide currency: "Green OA"):
>>
>> Although the distinction between journals that endorse the immediate
>> OA self-archiving of both the refereed postprint and the
>> pre-refereeing preprint (P+p) and journals that endorse the immediate
>> OA self-archiving of the refereed postprint but not the pre-refereeing
>> preprint (P) is not completely empty, it is of incomparably less
>> importance and relevance to OA than the distinction between journals
>> that do and do not endorse the immediate OA self-archiving of the
>> refereed postprint (P vs. not-P).
>>
>> It is OA self-archiving of the refereed postprint that the OA movement
>> is about and for. And it is OA self-archiving of the refereed
>> postprint that is meant by the term "Green OA."
>>
>> And yet SHERPA Romeo continues to code P+p as "green" and P as "blue"!
>>
>> There is no "Blue OA." And the over 200 funders and institutions that
>> have already mandated Green OA have not mandated "Blue OA": They could
>> not care less whether the journals endorse the self-archiving of the
>> unrefereed preprint in addition to the refereed postprint: Green OA
>> only concerns the refereed postprint.
>>
>> It is for this reason that EPrints Romeo has steadfastly generated a
>> colour-corrected version of the SHERPA Romeo summary statistics
>> pie-chart across these eight years -- in addition to generating the
>> statistics for journals as well as for publishers. (SHERPA Romeo
>> originally covered only publishers, but the statistics for journals
>> are much more informative -- and positive -- than the statistics for
>> publishers, since one publisher might publish one journal and another
>> might publish 2000!.)
>>
>> To see the immediate gain in clarity and consistency from suppressing
>> the P+p/P ("green"/"blue") distinction in the summary statistics,
>> compare the SHERPA Romeo and EPrints Romeo summary pies for publishers
>> below. (Note that the EPrints Romeo data are static, because they have
>> not been updated for several years. The eye will show that for
>> publishers the proportions are much the same, but have gotten somewhat
>> better in recent years.
>>
>> I beg SHERPA Romeo to add the simplified, colour-corrected pie
>> alongside the particoloured one (with the explanation that in the OA
>> world, "Green" means P, not just P+p.). It would make a world of
>> difference for user understanding.
>>
>> In addition, now that SHERPA is covering the data at the individual
>> journal level, I urge providing the journal-level pie too, for it not
>> only gives a more realistic picture, but an even more positive one.
>>
>>
>> SHERPA Romeo's current "Green = Green & Blue = Green" publisher
>> pie-chart (based on proportions of publishers):
>>
>> http://openaccess.eprints.org/uploads/sherpapubs.jpg
>>
>> EPrints Romeo's colour-corrected publisher pie-chart, in which Green =
>> Green OA (and preprints-only endorsements are coded as "pale green")
>> (based on proportions of publishers, but out of date by several
>> years):
>>
>> http://openaccess.eprints.org/uploads/eromeopubs.png
>>
>> EPrints Romeo's colour-corrected journals pie-chart, in which Green =
>> Green OA (and preprints-only endorsements are coded as "pale green")
>> (based on proportions of journals). Note that the overall proportions
>> are even better (but these data areout of date by several years, hence
>> need updating, though they will not change much, as they already
>> covered most of the big publishers, with the largest number of
>> journals):
>>
>> http://openaccess.eprints.org/uploads/eromeojourns.png
>>
>> Stevan Harnad
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Jane Smith <Jane.H.Smith --
>> nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > *Apologises for Cross-Posting*
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > SHERPA Services’ is excited to announce the launch of an upgraded
>> > version of SHERPA RoMEO (www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo) as part of ongoing
>> > improvements to the SHERPA RoMEO service.
>> >
>> > The new version contains significant additions and improvements to
>> > RoMEO, and now provides:
>> >
>> > Increased Journal Coverage:
>> >
>> > SHERPA-RoMEO now has its own Journals database containing over 18000
>> > journals including many titles not covered by the other lists we use -
>> > Zetoc, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and ENTREZ
>> >
>> > More up to Date:
>> >
>> > The new SHERPA RoMEO Journals database is faster than other lists in
>> > responding to new titles and journals that change publishers
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > More Accurate Journal Level Searching:
>> >
>> > The new journals database means that RoMEO identifies rights holders
>> > more accurately, especially where a commercial publisher is publishing on
>> > behalf of a society
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > More Search Options:
>> >
>> > In addition to searching for journals by title or ISSNs and publisher
>> > names, an advanced search option lets users search for publishers’ by RoMEO
>> > colour, RoMEO ID and RoMEO update date
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Electronic ISSNs:
>> >
>> > RoMEO now holds data on electronic ISSN’s in addition to print ISSN’s
>> > and users can search for both using the ISSN search field
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Faster Performance:
>> >
>> > Technical upgrades have made many features work faster than before
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > About SHERPA-RoMEO
>> >
>> > SHERPA-RoMEO uses a simple colour-code classification to simplify
>> > complex publisher and journal policy information and provides impartial,
>> > easy to follow and accurate guidance on permissions and conditions of rights
>> > given to authors by journal publishers.
>> >
>> > SHERPA-RoMEO offers users the ability to:
>> >
>> > · View summaries of publishers' and journal copyright policies
>> > in relation to self-archiving
>> >
>> > · View if publisher and journal policies comply with research
>> > funder archiving policies, mandates and guidelines
>> >
>> > · To search journal and publisher information by Journal Title,
>> > Publisher Name, ISSN and eSSN
>> >
>> > Additionally, SHERPA-RoMEO provides lists of
>> >
>> > · Publishers that allow the use of their PDFs in Institutional
>> > Repositories
>> >
>> > · Publisher with Paid Options
>> >
>> > SHERPA-RoMEO is seen as an essential resource by many in the Open Access
>> > community.
>> >
>> > This development work is funded by JISC. Journal information is kindly
>> > provided by the British Library's Zetoc service hosted by MIMAS, the
>> > Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) hosted by Lund University
>> > Libraries, and the Entrez journal list hosted by the NCBI.
>> >
>> > About SHERPA Services’
>> >
>> > SHERPA Services’ are based at the Centre for Research Communications,
>> > University of Nottingham and maintain on behalf of the open access community
>> > a portfolio of services: RoMEO, JULIET and OpenDOAR.
>> >
>> > The Centre for Research Communications (CRC) was formed in April 2009,
>> > to help to support and inform the changes and new ideas in the way that
>> > research is communicated around the world. The CRC houses a portfolio of
>> > open access projects and initiatives currently undertaken by the University
>> > of Nottingham.
>> >
>> > OpenDOAR
>> >
>> > http://www.opendoar.org/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > RoMEO
>> >
>> > http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > JULIET
>> >
>> > http://www/sherpa.ac.uk/juliet
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > JISC
>> >
>> > http://www.jisc.ac.uk/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > For all enquiries regarding RoMEO please contact: [log in to unmask]
>> >
>> > 15th August 2011
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jane H Smith
>> >
>> > BSc (hons), MSc, MCLIP
>> >
>> > SHERPA Services Development Officer
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Tel: 01159514341
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Centre for Research Communications
>> >
>> > Greenfield Medical Library
>> >
>> > Queens Medical Centre
>> >
>> > University of Nottingham
>> >
>> > NG7 2UH
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > CRC http://crc.nottingham.ac.uk/
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > RoMEO www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo
>> >
>> > JULIET www.sherpa.ac.uk/juliet
>> >
>> > OpenDOAR www.opendoar.org
>
>
>
> --
> Dr. David Goodman
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
|
