Stevan Â
There is no need to exaggerate.  Clearly from the point of view of a reader, the Accepted Manuscript (NISO terminology) is better than no article at all. Equally clearly, the Version of Record (again NISO terminology) is better still. From the point of view of providing access then, then the preferences for mandatory deposits are (1) the AM as soon as sent off to publisher, (2) followed by the VoR at publication time if the author did not an agreement giving up rights in it. It is worth noting that in most jurisdictions, publishers have no automatic rights in a VoR any different from the AM. They depend on the copyright transfer agreement to control the VoR.  When we turn to the researcher, the situation changes significantly, if slightly. Researchers regard the VoR as the canonic version of their article, almost exclusively (I exempt you and me and a small set of similar-minded people). As far as they are concerned, all earlier versions are suspect and not to be displayed once they have served their purpose. They also believe they âownâ the VoR. This is not an âacademic idealâ, but a practical reality. The VoR is THE CANONIC VERSION. It is one reason why many researchers fail to post anything on an OA repository, because they do not understand what their rights are and they are reluctant to post something they conceive of as flawed.  Interestingly though, I believe there are a growing number of researchers who totally ignore any agreement they sign with publishers, and post their VoR regardless, because it is âtheirsâ. It is this practice (in the form of providing electronic "reprints") that publishers find difficult to ignore, and possibly why the copyright transfer agreements are strengthened. It is possibly why authors are so complacent about six-month embargos, waiting six months to be able to have their VoR OA is better (they think) than immediate OA for the AM. It may also be why researchers who do no OA on their own are happy to sign petitions asking for the VoR to be freed of imagined constraints. Again, I am not talking academic ideals, but real practical behaviour.  This suggests a new form of hybrid practice, where instead of providing OA on the publisher website for a fee, the publisher grants the author the right to make the (publisher-supplied) VoR OA. The costs to the publisher of doing this are almost negligible. The VoR has to be produced anyway; the author has to be given a copy; there may be a small legal and administrative fee. Publishers may argue that such a right involves foregone income, but given the delays in researchers posting their VoR, this is rather spurious. There would seem to be no reason why publishers should not sell such a right for more than say US$100.  I write this because I believe that OA is not going to be achieved just by sole emphasis on mandates, but on recognising the realities and complexities of real people behaviour. OA is a scholarly revolution in process, and like all revolution, it is the people involved that matter.  Arthur Sale University of Tasmania  -----Original Message----- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Tuesday, 14 February 2012 5:36 PM To: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum Cc: Global Open Access List Subject: [GOAL] Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record  Straightforward question:  Since the reason we are discussing authors' refereed, accepted final drafts versus publisher's copy-edited versions of record here is not to compare their relative merits but to determine what Open Access mandates should mandate, do those who point out (correctly) the (possible) shortcomings of the author's draft mean to imply that it is better that would-be users who are denied access to the publisher's version because their institutions cannot afford a subscription should be denied access to the author's version as well, because of the (possible) shortcomings of the author's draft?  Because it is as simple as that; all the rest has nothing to do with the practical reality of Open Access (OA) but with scholarly ideals.  If we are to reach 100% OA in this decade instead of losing another decade dithering, bickering and digressions, then research funders and research institutions need to mandate author self-archiving. The version with the least publisher restrictions on it is the author's final draft. Over 60% of journals, including most of the top journals, endorse immediate OA self-archiviong of the author's final draft, but not the publisher's version of record. (The rest don't endorse any form of immediate OA.)  Are we, in turn, going to endorse this mandate (which -- so far adopted by only 200 institutions -- needs all the help it can get) or are we going to continue debating the relative merits of "that" versus "which"?  Stevan Harnad [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
