Re: Elsevier Gives Authors Green Light for Open Access Self-Archiving

[Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Fri, 28 May 2004, Heather Morrison wrote:

>   Elsevier's Karen Hunter wrote:
>>  By "his version" we are referring to Word or Tex file, not a PDF or HTML
>>  downloaded from ScienceDirect - but the author can update the version
>>  to reflect changes made during the refereeing and editing process.
>   
>   This is do-it-yourself editing, right? The author is free to post
>   the final, refereed version, but must take the responsibility for
>   editing and proofreading from the author's own preprint?

No, this is do-it-yourself self-archiving of the final, refereed version.
(If there has been any substantive editing, the author is free to
incorporate that too.)

>   Researchers deserve better! When a researcher essentially gives away
>   the ability to reap monetary reward from publishing an article, the
>   least the publisher can do is provide the author with the fruits of
>   their own labour, in the form of the final electronic version(s).

Heather: Ne faites pas plus royaliste que le roi! This is exactly the
point on which the well-meaning library community is profoundly
misunderstanding what the research community wants and needs, now, and
risks becoming a part of the problem rather than the solution. As I wrote,
presciently, in the announcement of Elsevier's going green:

>> There will be the predictable cavils from the pedants and those who
>> have never understood the real meaning and nature of OA: "It's only the
>> final refereed draft, not the publisher's PDF," "It does not include
>> republishing rights," "Elsevier is still not an OA publisher."

What researchers deserve and want and need is open access to their
refereed research, now (in fact, a decade ago). This should not be allowed
to be delayed or diverted for one microsecond more in favour of holding
out for which-hunting (sic).
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0025.

The "monetary reward" issue is squarely a library/affordability issue.
Please do not let it becloud a very clear picture insofar as the issue of
access is concerned.

The self-archived OA version of a refereed journal article is a
*supplement*, not a *substitute*, for the canonical journal version. It is
a supplement that is provided by the author so that no would-be user whose
institution cannot afford to subscribe to the journal version is ever
again denied access to the article.

That (and nothing else) is what OA is about. There may *possibly* be some
eventual spin-offs for the affordability problem; but at this point that
tail must not be allowed to wag the dog.

> If this is full "green", then I think we need new shades. This is
> a pale, half-hearted green, which might be seen as a token form of
> supporting open access which is actually meant to discourage it
> in practice. A true full green should be reserved for publishers
> willing to provide the final copy in electronic format.

Dear Heather, none of this well-intentioned exactingness is helpful to
either OA or to researchers! The SHERPA/Romeo list already codes far too
many trivial and even incoherent distinctions with far too many useless
and uninformative colors: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php?all=yes

That is precisely why we have had to create the Southampton/Romeo
version:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/Romeo/romeosum.html
http://romeo.eprints.org/publishers.html

The Romeo Directory of publishers' self-archiving policies is not
primarily intended as a detailed database for traditional library
permissions/IP specialists cataloguing publishers' usage constraints on
bought-in content.

It is intended for researcher/authors trying to find out which journals
have already given the green light to self-archiving (and how their
numbers are growing).

> This is a step in the right direction though, and congratulations
> to Elsevier.

It is the *only* step publishers *must* take for OA. The rest of it is all
down to researchers. And the library community is not helping if it keeps
putting the stress on the wrong sylLABLE...

> One positive in this do-it-yourself editing approach from the
> commercial publishing side is that it gives an added edge to the
> open access publishers, who are willing to provide the self-archiving
> researcher with a superior product.

The only relevant edge here is the edge of the growth curve for OA
provision. Let us hope the bright green light will now guide that toward
100% without further delay.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0024.gif

Stevan Harna