RE: Darnton on the Google settlement

["David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>]

I 'm not really sure what we are debating now.  Your original 
point, of objection I thought, was that some materials being made 
open access were not copyedited.  Now, you are agreeing with me 
that there can be is value in having access to un-copyedited 
material.

Is the point just that good copyediting is better than either bad 
copyediting or no copyediting at all?  Isn't that trivially 
obvious?

David

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Sandy Thatcher
Sent: 04 February 2009 23:15
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Darnton on the Google settlement

>Sandy
>
>It is certainly true that copy-editing can add value, but it is
>not true that un-copyedited documents are valueless.  Many
>disciplines are very comfortable with un-copyedited papers -
>from physics (though arXiv), economics (with working papers),
>and biomedicine (with some publishers making pre-copyedited
>manuscripts available on acceptance).  The circulation of these
>thousands of documents is not causing any appreciable harm to
>the academic enterprise.

I never claimed uncopyedited documents were valueless, and there
are undoubtedly some authors who need little or no copyediting
because they are very careful and good writers. Nor does
copyediting provide any guarantee that errors are not still
present. It is just that, on balance, well-copyedited documents
are likely to be more more valuable, especially for long-term
archiving, than ones where no copyediting has been done at all.

>And what is the alternative?  That the theses and dissertations,
>for example, from our universities should be kept under lock and
>key, never to be seen?

Not at all. I was a member of the ETD committee at Penn State
because I saw great advantages in having these materials more
widely distributed. At the same time, in my job I read many, many
revised dissertations as well as some unrevised ones, and I can
tell you that there are very few indeed that cannot benefit
greatly from good copyediting.

>I'm also sure that there are any number of OA journals that do
>little or no copyediting.  But I'm also sure that there are any
>number of subscription-based journals that do little of no
>copyediting.  Do you have any evidence that the average standard
>of copyediting for OA journals is lower than the average
>standard of copyediting for subscription-based journals?

My suspicions are aroused when OA journals do not charge any fees
to authors and are not subsidized by any foundations because I do
not know of many universities these days that will spend money to
purchase copyediting services. Perhaps the journal editors do
some copyediting themselves. A few may be good at it; most very
likely are not. But it would be interesting to find out how many
OA journals include copyediting in the services they provide.
This information is not apparent anywhere on the web sites of OA
journals I have visited. We know that hybrid OA journals, like
those Oxford provides, do.

>And your definition of Green OA is wrong - green OA is the
>deposit of authors' papers in suitable repositories.  There is
>nothing in the definition that dictates which version is used.
>Some publishers, in fact, insist that the final, copyedited and
>formatted version is the only one that authors should use.

I stand corrected. But I suspect that far more publishers permit
posting of post-prints than of the final versions of articles. Do
you know of any list of publishers that insist on the posting
only of final versions?

Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press