I did not expect Stevan to agree with me, and so I welcome his corrections. I post only to acknowledge three possible errors in my posting.
First, I failed to spot that the limitation to NIH was not as good as a broader subject approach. Alas, Stevan is right--it is significaent. Second, If Steven is correct (and I hope he is) that despite the ambuiguity of the language, "authors' final manuscripts (as accepted for journal publication)," this text will be interpreted favorably, then that corresponding part of my posting will not stand, Third, when I noted "the requirement is still only for the author-corrected text, which remains less-desirable than author-produced pdf copies from the publishers' print and even less desirable than posting the pdf from the publisher." I should have made clear that the importance of these differences in desirability was unknown There are many opinions (including mine and his), but no data. Again, I hope that he is correct. Stevan further asks if I "would rather refuse this step by NIH, and keep waiting." No, I would continue to urge publication in the most suitable journal with the best OA, and continue working for improvements (which I do by talking to publishers). I would not, upon seeing an inferior version, consider the problem solved. Dr. David Goodman Associate Professor Palmer School of Library and Information Science Long Island University dgood...@liu.edu Executive Committee, COUNTER (formerly: Princeton University Library)
