[GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record
Stevan  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] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record
In response to Stevan Harnad, Arthur Sale wrote: > 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 wnthe VoR. This is not an > cademic ideal 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. There's an assumption in many of the posts on this topic that all articles accessed will be cited. My experience is that I identify many articles from their abstract (usually available for free), a forward and backwards reference search (an article is cited by another I've read or cites another one I've read), from the list of publications of an author whose other works I've read and from a number of other sources. If that article is available to me in the VoR or as an AM then I can first skim the introduction/conclusions and if it seems of further interest read the full article, or selected elements of it. After this proper reading of all or some of either the VoR or the AM then at some point I MAY wish to reference the article or quote from it. Then and only then is the VoR actually needed at all, ad actually I (as you note below) rely on the open access AM version if I don't have access already to the VoR (of course any article I don't have access to doesn't get read and therefore not cited - in particular I almost never pay the ridiculous per-article costs requested by publishers - one article costing the same as 50-100% of full books? That just demonstrates exactly how ridiculous are the subscription rates on which the per-article charges are sert pro-rata). If I really felt I needed the VoR for the articles I want to cite then I could pay the per article charge (I don't, but others may be more hesitant). In my experience, and this is just personal anecdote, I identify perhaps 50-100 times as many articles as of potential interest as I actually cite. For someone in a less interdisciplinary field perhaps their numbers might be lower, but then again they may also already have subscription access to the journals they feel they need - the narrower one's research focus, and the large one's group of researchers with the same interest, the more likely one is to have access to the necessary literature. However, I would suspect that most researchers do not cite every article they ever read. For any article one does not actually wish to cite, the VoR is not necessary. The AM should absolutely be sufficient for evaluating the importance of the article. Arthur Sale continued: > 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 heirs 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. [snip] You make a quantitative claim here. Do you have any evidence you can offer for this? [further snippage] -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Arthur Sale wrote: Stevan  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. This is very useful to know the precise terminology. I recently discovered some examples, such as http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~sxs98ltb/chambersLobbButlerHarveyTraill.pdf This manuscript contains the phase "Authorâs Accepted Manuscript". Does GOAL know or can it speculate usefully who added this phrase. Is it done by the author (seems unlikely), the publisher, or an institutional repository? Similarly in my previous mail to GOAL I gave the example of a manuscript in Pubmed which appeared to be a AM but contained phraseology which appeared to have sections added by or at the request of the publisher. I am simply asking for factual information. P.   -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record
Anthony Point 1 - absolutely true. Only a small minority of downloads lead to citations. Have a look at the download data of eprints.utas.edu.au. However I cannot resist writing that citations are not the same as impact. Only in academic circles are citations highly regarded and that is useful but not totally relevant. In most places what one is looking for is impact. For example if I write an article on improving fish farming, I want the fish farmers to take it up. If they only get the AM, well yes that is much better than nothing (as Stevan says) and they might contact me. However, their directors will want to know (for legal reasons) that their recommendations are firmly-based, and that means access to the VoR, which fish farmers may not have. Hence researcher attitudes to the VoR. Point 2 - sorry no. The observation is anecdotal. Largely based on my university and Australian universities, but supported by website, blog and Mendeley evidence. I believe it is why some mandates are not worth their disk space (or the paper they may be written on) - they are ignored by real live researchers. The OA movement needs to engage with researchers and convince them that the mandate is worth complying with, because they do not believe it. You may be interested to know that ALL Australian universities have repositories, but only those of the University of Queensland, the Queensland University of Technology, and the University of Tasmania (mine) are in the top 100 of the Webometrics survey? Why? Probably because most of the 'mandates' are ineffective, except in gathering citations and restricted documents. The first two universities have strong mandates. The OA world is bigger than 'mandates at all costs'. It needs to recognise the reality of revolutions. They disrupt normal practice (in this case of science and scholarly dissemination). Best wishes Arthur -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Andrew A. Adams Sent: Wednesday, 15 February 2012 6:47 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record In response to Stevan Harnad, Arthur Sale wrote: > 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 wnthe VoR. This is not an > cademic ideal 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. There's an assumption in many of the posts on this topic that all articles accessed will be cited. My experience is that I identify many articles from their abstract (usually available for free), a forward and backwards reference search (an article is cited by another I've read or cites another one I've read), from the list of publications of an author whose other works I've read and from a number of other sources. If that article is available to me in the VoR or as an AM then I can first skim the introduction/conclusions and if it seems of further interest read the full article, or selected elements of it. After this proper reading of all or some of either the VoR or the AM then at some point I MAY wish to reference the article or quote from it. Then and only then is the VoR actually needed at all, ad actually I (as you note below) rely on the open access AM version if I don't have access already to the VoR (of course any article I don't have access to doesn't get read and therefore not cited - in particular I almost never pay the ridiculous per-article costs requested by publishers - one article costing the same as 50-100% of full books? That just demonstrates exactly how ridiculous are the subscription rates on which the per-article charges are sert pro-rata). If I really felt I needed the VoR for the articles I want to cite then I could pay the per article charge (I don't, but others may be more hesitant). In my experience, and this is just personal anecdote, I identify perhaps 50-100 times as many articles as of potential interest as I actually cite. For someone in a less interdisciplinary field perhaps their numbers might be lower, but then again they may also already have subscription access to the journals they feel they need - the narrower one's research focus, and the large one's group of researchers with the same interest, the more likely one is to have access to t
[GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record
Andrew Sorry for the mistake about your name and thank you for the tolerance. I think that you have a rosy idea of what private enterprise researchers actually do. In many cases their attention span is under a second (well say five seconds). They have real work to do. But please DO NOT suggest that I think the AM is not any good. It is. But to suggest that any of this is OK is ideal is exaggeration, and that is what I was responding to in Stevan's post. You should also realize that private enterprise researchers (such as a fish farmer) does not have the easy un-approved access to funds that a university person has, so they don't go further. (I add that I am an honorary 'university person' so I admit to bias.) Though I have industry tacts and experience). Ion point 2, I agree, mostly. In practice the mandate 'policy' is almost meaningless. In some cases it means something but is ignored. I do know you are in complete agreement with Stevan, but he uses shorthand because of the email flood, which most do not understand. Where we disagree is that mandates are THE answer. After years of toiling along this path I have to disagree. Mandates are never going to work, just by themselves. That is why publishers are so complacent. The answer is more complex, and proponents of OA should be more perspicuous. What I most fear is that this mandate policy will cost OA another one or perhaps two decades. Arthur -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Andrew A. Adams Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012 12:16 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record > Anthony Andrew, actually. But, absolutely no offense taken :-). > Point 1 - absolutely true. Only a small minority of downloads lead to > citations. Have a look at the download data of eprints.utas.edu.au. However > I cannot resist writing that citations are not the same as impact. Only in > academic circles are citations highly regarded and that is useful but not > totally relevant. In most places what one is looking for is impact. For > example if I write an article on improving fish farming, I want the fish > farmers to take it up. If they only get the AM, well yes that is much better > than nothing (as Stevan says) and they might contact me. However, their > directors will want to know (for legal reasons) that their recommendations > are firmly-based, and that means access to the VoR, which fish farmers may > not have. Hence researcher attitudes to the VoR. While I couched my point in terms of academic work and referencing, I think we're actually talking about the same thing in different contexts. In your example of the fish farm, I think their usage of results in practice shows the same patterns as I gave for academics. They would still, I suspect look at many more articles at some level, gradually drilling down into the ones of most interest/relevance. Only at the very final stage where they wished to make a proposal for adoption of a novel element in their practices drawn from the peer reviewed literature would they need access to the VoR, just as a working scientist or scholar only needs access to the VoR at the point of citation, or other usage (such as replicating the experiment). The benefits of the AM are still enormous in that potential recipients of the research only need, if they feel it necessary, to pay the toll access for the VoR on the small percentage of the articles that get through their filters for relevance > Point 2 - sorry no. The observation is anecdotal. Largely based on my > university and Australian universities, but supported by website, blog and > Mendeley evidence. I believe it is why some mandates are not worth their > disk space (or the paper they may be written on) - they are ignored by real > live researchers. The OA movement needs to engage with researchers and > convince them that the mandate is worth complying with, because they do not > believe it. You may be interested to know that ALL Australian universities > have repositories, but only those of the University of Queensland, the > Queensland University of Technology, and the University of Tasmania (mine) > are in the top 100 of the Webometrics survey? Why? Probably because most of > the 'mandates' are ineffective, except in gathering citations and restricted > documents. The first two universities have strong mandates. > > The OA world is bigger than 'mandates at all costs'. It needs to recognise > the reality of revolutions. They disrupt normal practice (in this case of > science and scholarly dissemination). Here I think you, I, Stevan and many others (Bernard, Alma etc.) are in agreement in practice but are interpreting words sl
[GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record
> Andrew > > Sorry for the mistake about your name and thank you for the tolerance. No problem. I've been called worse, and not in deliberate insult, either. I think the worst was being introduced to someone as Adam Adamson. The perils of a surname that is almost a first name. I'm not immune to the syndrome, either, having in person done the first/last name switch with two others, so I live in a glass house and shouldn't throw stones :-). > I think that you have a rosy idea of what private enterprise researchers > actually do. In many cases their attention span is under a second (well say > five seconds). They have real work to do. But please DO NOT suggest that I > think the AM is not any good. It is. But to suggest that any of this is OK > is ideal is exaggeration, and that is what I was responding to in Stevan's > post. You should also realize that private enterprise researchers (such as a > fish farmer) does not have the easy un-approved access to funds that a > university person has, so they don't go further. (I add that I am an > honorary 'university person' so I admit to bias.) Though I have industry > tacts and experience). Well, I have no experience with fish farmers. My experience is mostly with computing researchers and law resaerchers. Both of them tend to do research in very much the same way an academic will do, albeit usually with less broadness in their initial grabbing of what looks worth initial consideration than an academic would use (in my experience). I do know through my wife, who is a bi-tech journalist, that bio-tech industry people often have the same problem of limited access because of high costs that academics do but they also need to keep up with what's going on in areas related to their field so OA is really valuable to them. I don't have evidence that they do the same winnowing down that I described, but unless one works in a very narrow field I'm not sure what else one can do and keep up with the rest of the work going on. > Ion point 2, I agree, mostly. In practice the mandate 'policy' is almost > meaningless. In some cases it means something but is ignored. I do know you > are in complete agreement with Stevan, but he uses shorthand because of the > email flood, which most do not understand. I didn't say the mandate was meaningless. I think the mandate is an important and, when done correctly, necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving OA via the Green Brick Road. Too many policies are meaningless because they're either not mandates (opt-outs, attempts to force copyright-retention). I'm not sure if there are any solid mandates for ID/OA that have achieved less than 50% after a reasonable period of operation (say, 3 years). Given the mass of evidence that outside HE Physics and CS that unmandated deposit rates are around 20%, getting to 50% 60% or more in a few years is more progress than we can demonstrate for any other mechanism. Show me a mechanism with a real track-record of better success and I'll happily start advocating it. > Where we disagree is that mandates are THE answer. After years of toiling > along this path I have to disagree. Mandates are never going to work, just > by themselves. That is why publishers are so complacent. The answer is more > complex, and proponents of OA should be more perspicuous. The Research Works Act, however, seems to show that publishers are NOT complacent about mandates. In fact, they do seem to be rather more worried about mandates than unmandated allowances for archiving. > What I most fear is that this mandate policy will cost OA another one or > perhaps two decades. It's the best we've got now, though, and at least it's a clear mechanism that has a proven small scale track record and does scale. Nothing else we've got now shows that. So, if people want to explore other mechanisms, they're free to do so, but promoting them befre they're shown to have a better track record than the best we've got now is premature and, IMHO, more likely to lead to further lost access than promoting mandates. As mandates become better understood, we can hope that they become easy to get adopted and easier to understand and implement. -- Professor Andrew A Adams a...@meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record
Stevan 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 'own' the VoR. This is not an 'academic ideal', 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 'theirs'. 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-bounces at 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 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was s
[GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record
In response to Stevan Harnad, Arthur Sale wrote: > 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 wnthe VoR. This is not an > cademic ideal 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. There's an assumption in many of the posts on this topic that all articles accessed will be cited. My experience is that I identify many articles from their abstract (usually available for free), a forward and backwards reference search (an article is cited by another I've read or cites another one I've read), from the list of publications of an author whose other works I've read and from a number of other sources. If that article is available to me in the VoR or as an AM then I can first skim the introduction/conclusions and if it seems of further interest read the full article, or selected elements of it. After this proper reading of all or some of either the VoR or the AM then at some point I MAY wish to reference the article or quote from it. Then and only then is the VoR actually needed at all, ad actually I (as you note below) rely on the open access AM version if I don't have access already to the VoR (of course any article I don't have access to doesn't get read and therefore not cited - in particular I almost never pay the ridiculous per-article costs requested by publishers - one article costing the same as 50-100% of full books? That just demonstrates exactly how ridiculous are the subscription rates on which the per-article charges are sert pro-rata). If I really felt I needed the VoR for the articles I want to cite then I could pay the per article charge (I don't, but others may be more hesitant). In my experience, and this is just personal anecdote, I identify perhaps 50-100 times as many articles as of potential interest as I actually cite. For someone in a less interdisciplinary field perhaps their numbers might be lower, but then again they may also already have subscription access to the journals they feel they need - the narrower one's research focus, and the large one's group of researchers with the same interest, the more likely one is to have access to the necessary literature. However, I would suspect that most researchers do not cite every article they ever read. For any article one does not actually wish to cite, the VoR is not necessary. The AM should absolutely be sufficient for evaluating the importance of the article. Arthur Sale continued: > 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 heirs 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. [snip] You make a quantitative claim here. Do you have any evidence you can offer for this? [further snippage] -- Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/
[GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Arthur Sale wrote: > Stevan > > ** ** > > 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. > > This is very useful to know the precise terminology. I recently discovered some examples, such as http://www.personal.rdg.ac.uk/~sxs98ltb/chambersLobbButlerHarveyTraill.pdf This manuscript contains the phase "Author?s Accepted Manuscript". Does GOAL know or can it speculate usefully who added this phrase. Is it done by the author (seems unlikely), the publisher, or an institutional repository? Similarly in my previous mail to GOAL I gave the example of a manuscript in Pubmed which appeared to be a AM but contained phraseology which appeared to have sections added by or at the request of the publisher. I am simply asking for factual information. P. > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069 -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120215/5fc6c6cd/attachment.html
[GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record
Anthony Point 1 - absolutely true. Only a small minority of downloads lead to citations. Have a look at the download data of eprints.utas.edu.au. However I cannot resist writing that citations are not the same as impact. Only in academic circles are citations highly regarded and that is useful but not totally relevant. In most places what one is looking for is impact. For example if I write an article on improving fish farming, I want the fish farmers to take it up. If they only get the AM, well yes that is much better than nothing (as Stevan says) and they might contact me. However, their directors will want to know (for legal reasons) that their recommendations are firmly-based, and that means access to the VoR, which fish farmers may not have. Hence researcher attitudes to the VoR. Point 2 - sorry no. The observation is anecdotal. Largely based on my university and Australian universities, but supported by website, blog and Mendeley evidence. I believe it is why some mandates are not worth their disk space (or the paper they may be written on) - they are ignored by real live researchers. The OA movement needs to engage with researchers and convince them that the mandate is worth complying with, because they do not believe it. You may be interested to know that ALL Australian universities have repositories, but only those of the University of Queensland, the Queensland University of Technology, and the University of Tasmania (mine) are in the top 100 of the Webometrics survey? Why? Probably because most of the 'mandates' are ineffective, except in gathering citations and restricted documents. The first two universities have strong mandates. The OA world is bigger than 'mandates at all costs'. It needs to recognise the reality of revolutions. They disrupt normal practice (in this case of science and scholarly dissemination). Best wishes Arthur -Original Message- From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Andrew A. Adams Sent: Wednesday, 15 February 2012 6:47 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record In response to Stevan Harnad, Arthur Sale wrote: > 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 wnthe VoR. This is not an > cademic ideal 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. There's an assumption in many of the posts on this topic that all articles accessed will be cited. My experience is that I identify many articles from their abstract (usually available for free), a forward and backwards reference search (an article is cited by another I've read or cites another one I've read), from the list of publications of an author whose other works I've read and from a number of other sources. If that article is available to me in the VoR or as an AM then I can first skim the introduction/conclusions and if it seems of further interest read the full article, or selected elements of it. After this proper reading of all or some of either the VoR or the AM then at some point I MAY wish to reference the article or quote from it. Then and only then is the VoR actually needed at all, ad actually I (as you note below) rely on the open access AM version if I don't have access already to the VoR (of course any article I don't have access to doesn't get read and therefore not cited - in particular I almost never pay the ridiculous per-article costs requested by publishers - one article costing the same as 50-100% of full books? That just demonstrates exactly how ridiculous are the subscription rates on which the per-article charges are sert pro-rata). If I really felt I needed the VoR for the articles I want to cite then I could pay the per article charge (I don't, but others may be more hesitant). In my experience, and this is just personal anecdote, I identify perhaps 50-100 times as many articles as of potential interest as I actually cite. For someone in a less interdisciplinary field perhaps their numbers might be lower, but then again they may also already have subscription access to the journals they feel they need - the narrower one's research focus, and the large one's group of researchers with the same interest, the more likely one is to have access
[GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record
> Anthony Andrew, actually. But, absolutely no offense taken :-). > Point 1 - absolutely true. Only a small minority of downloads lead to > citations. Have a look at the download data of eprints.utas.edu.au. However > I cannot resist writing that citations are not the same as impact. Only in > academic circles are citations highly regarded and that is useful but not > totally relevant. In most places what one is looking for is impact. For > example if I write an article on improving fish farming, I want the fish > farmers to take it up. If they only get the AM, well yes that is much better > than nothing (as Stevan says) and they might contact me. However, their > directors will want to know (for legal reasons) that their recommendations > are firmly-based, and that means access to the VoR, which fish farmers may > not have. Hence researcher attitudes to the VoR. While I couched my point in terms of academic work and referencing, I think we're actually talking about the same thing in different contexts. In your example of the fish farm, I think their usage of results in practice shows the same patterns as I gave for academics. They would still, I suspect look at many more articles at some level, gradually drilling down into the ones of most interest/relevance. Only at the very final stage where they wished to make a proposal for adoption of a novel element in their practices drawn from the peer reviewed literature would they need access to the VoR, just as a working scientist or scholar only needs access to the VoR at the point of citation, or other usage (such as replicating the experiment). The benefits of the AM are still enormous in that potential recipients of the research only need, if they feel it necessary, to pay the toll access for the VoR on the small percentage of the articles that get through their filters for relevance > Point 2 - sorry no. The observation is anecdotal. Largely based on my > university and Australian universities, but supported by website, blog and > Mendeley evidence. I believe it is why some mandates are not worth their > disk space (or the paper they may be written on) - they are ignored by real > live researchers. The OA movement needs to engage with researchers and > convince them that the mandate is worth complying with, because they do not > believe it. You may be interested to know that ALL Australian universities > have repositories, but only those of the University of Queensland, the > Queensland University of Technology, and the University of Tasmania (mine) > are in the top 100 of the Webometrics survey? Why? Probably because most of > the 'mandates' are ineffective, except in gathering citations and restricted > documents. The first two universities have strong mandates. > > The OA world is bigger than 'mandates at all costs'. It needs to recognise > the reality of revolutions. They disrupt normal practice (in this case of > science and scholarly dissemination). Here I think you, I, Stevan and many others (Bernard, Alma etc.) are in agreement in practice but are interpreting words slightly differently is all. When I talk of mandates (and I know I'm in complete agreement with Stevan on this) I do not mean just a published policy document, however well worded. The first step is to get as close to the optimal policy as possible, with wording that will be understood by the staff concerned to mean what you want it to mean, and to be acceptable to staff. There are many ways in which staff who do not accept the validity of an institutional policy can actively undermine that policy, even if they cannot get it overturned as policy. So, that acceptance as a valid policy is a necessary step in "adopting a mandate". However, once the mandate is official policy compliance with it needs to be promoted. There are multiple aspects to this. First, there needs to be effort at making deposit as easy as possible and to get people to default to depositing the full text, not just meta-data. Second there are other aspects of policy that can be used to support this, the Liege model being so far as we can tell the most effective (internal evaluation measures are only carried out on full-text deposits (which under ID/OA can be closed access but MUST include the full-text in at least AM form). Third, the benefits to the individual, the research group and the university of depositing (and where at all possible making the deposits open access instead of closed access plus button) need promotion. You appear to somewhat conflate in your discussion above having a mandate (a real mandate not just an encouragement policy) and having a (mostly empty repository). Stevan and others have done a number of studies showing that strong (preferably ID/OA) policy mandates are a necessary but not sufficient condition to achieve 80%+ ongoing deposit. The liege model, explanation and promotion of the repository and of the mandate (stressing the need for full text
[GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record
Andrew Sorry for the mistake about your name and thank you for the tolerance. I think that you have a rosy idea of what private enterprise researchers actually do. In many cases their attention span is under a second (well say five seconds). They have real work to do. But please DO NOT suggest that I think the AM is not any good. It is. But to suggest that any of this is OK is ideal is exaggeration, and that is what I was responding to in Stevan's post. You should also realize that private enterprise researchers (such as a fish farmer) does not have the easy un-approved access to funds that a university person has, so they don't go further. (I add that I am an honorary 'university person' so I admit to bias.) Though I have industry tacts and experience). Ion point 2, I agree, mostly. In practice the mandate 'policy' is almost meaningless. In some cases it means something but is ignored. I do know you are in complete agreement with Stevan, but he uses shorthand because of the email flood, which most do not understand. Where we disagree is that mandates are THE answer. After years of toiling along this path I have to disagree. Mandates are never going to work, just by themselves. That is why publishers are so complacent. The answer is more complex, and proponents of OA should be more perspicuous. What I most fear is that this mandate policy will cost OA another one or perhaps two decades. Arthur -Original Message- From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Andrew A. Adams Sent: Friday, 17 February 2012 12:16 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record > Anthony Andrew, actually. But, absolutely no offense taken :-). > Point 1 - absolutely true. Only a small minority of downloads lead to > citations. Have a look at the download data of eprints.utas.edu.au. However > I cannot resist writing that citations are not the same as impact. Only in > academic circles are citations highly regarded and that is useful but not > totally relevant. In most places what one is looking for is impact. For > example if I write an article on improving fish farming, I want the fish > farmers to take it up. If they only get the AM, well yes that is much better > than nothing (as Stevan says) and they might contact me. However, their > directors will want to know (for legal reasons) that their recommendations > are firmly-based, and that means access to the VoR, which fish farmers may > not have. Hence researcher attitudes to the VoR. While I couched my point in terms of academic work and referencing, I think we're actually talking about the same thing in different contexts. In your example of the fish farm, I think their usage of results in practice shows the same patterns as I gave for academics. They would still, I suspect look at many more articles at some level, gradually drilling down into the ones of most interest/relevance. Only at the very final stage where they wished to make a proposal for adoption of a novel element in their practices drawn from the peer reviewed literature would they need access to the VoR, just as a working scientist or scholar only needs access to the VoR at the point of citation, or other usage (such as replicating the experiment). The benefits of the AM are still enormous in that potential recipients of the research only need, if they feel it necessary, to pay the toll access for the VoR on the small percentage of the articles that get through their filters for relevance > Point 2 - sorry no. The observation is anecdotal. Largely based on my > university and Australian universities, but supported by website, blog and > Mendeley evidence. I believe it is why some mandates are not worth their > disk space (or the paper they may be written on) - they are ignored by real > live researchers. The OA movement needs to engage with researchers and > convince them that the mandate is worth complying with, because they do not > believe it. You may be interested to know that ALL Australian universities > have repositories, but only those of the University of Queensland, the > Queensland University of Technology, and the University of Tasmania (mine) > are in the top 100 of the Webometrics survey? Why? Probably because most of > the 'mandates' are ineffective, except in gathering citations and restricted > documents. The first two universities have strong mandates. > > The OA world is bigger than 'mandates at all costs'. It needs to recognise > the reality of revolutions. They disrupt normal practice (in this case of > science and scholarly dissemination). Here I think you, I, Stevan and many others (Bernard, Alma etc.) are in agreement in practice but are interpreting words sl
[GOAL] Re: Author's refereed, revised, accepted final draft vs. publisher's version-of-record
> Andrew > > Sorry for the mistake about your name and thank you for the tolerance. No problem. I've been called worse, and not in deliberate insult, either. I think the worst was being introduced to someone as Adam Adamson. The perils of a surname that is almost a first name. I'm not immune to the syndrome, either, having in person done the first/last name switch with two others, so I live in a glass house and shouldn't throw stones :-). > I think that you have a rosy idea of what private enterprise researchers > actually do. In many cases their attention span is under a second (well say > five seconds). They have real work to do. But please DO NOT suggest that I > think the AM is not any good. It is. But to suggest that any of this is OK > is ideal is exaggeration, and that is what I was responding to in Stevan's > post. You should also realize that private enterprise researchers (such as a > fish farmer) does not have the easy un-approved access to funds that a > university person has, so they don't go further. (I add that I am an > honorary 'university person' so I admit to bias.) Though I have industry > tacts and experience). Well, I have no experience with fish farmers. My experience is mostly with computing researchers and law resaerchers. Both of them tend to do research in very much the same way an academic will do, albeit usually with less broadness in their initial grabbing of what looks worth initial consideration than an academic would use (in my experience). I do know through my wife, who is a bi-tech journalist, that bio-tech industry people often have the same problem of limited access because of high costs that academics do but they also need to keep up with what's going on in areas related to their field so OA is really valuable to them. I don't have evidence that they do the same winnowing down that I described, but unless one works in a very narrow field I'm not sure what else one can do and keep up with the rest of the work going on. > Ion point 2, I agree, mostly. In practice the mandate 'policy' is almost > meaningless. In some cases it means something but is ignored. I do know you > are in complete agreement with Stevan, but he uses shorthand because of the > email flood, which most do not understand. I didn't say the mandate was meaningless. I think the mandate is an important and, when done correctly, necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving OA via the Green Brick Road. Too many policies are meaningless because they're either not mandates (opt-outs, attempts to force copyright-retention). I'm not sure if there are any solid mandates for ID/OA that have achieved less than 50% after a reasonable period of operation (say, 3 years). Given the mass of evidence that outside HE Physics and CS that unmandated deposit rates are around 20%, getting to 50% 60% or more in a few years is more progress than we can demonstrate for any other mechanism. Show me a mechanism with a real track-record of better success and I'll happily start advocating it. > Where we disagree is that mandates are THE answer. After years of toiling > along this path I have to disagree. Mandates are never going to work, just > by themselves. That is why publishers are so complacent. The answer is more > complex, and proponents of OA should be more perspicuous. The Research Works Act, however, seems to show that publishers are NOT complacent about mandates. In fact, they do seem to be rather more worried about mandates than unmandated allowances for archiving. > What I most fear is that this mandate policy will cost OA another one or > perhaps two decades. It's the best we've got now, though, and at least it's a clear mechanism that has a proven small scale track record and does scale. Nothing else we've got now shows that. So, if people want to explore other mechanisms, they're free to do so, but promoting them befre they're shown to have a better track record than the best we've got now is premature and, IMHO, more likely to lead to further lost access than promoting mandates. As mandates become better understood, we can hope that they become easy to get adopted and easier to understand and implement. -- Professor Andrew A Adams aaa at meiji.ac.jp Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/
