Re: Roundtable Press Release (Access to Research Results)

[Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu>]

It would be dangerous for the future of scholarship, however, to 
cite anything but the version of record in formal publications. 
Scholars have always exchanged drafts of papers in the print 
world, too, but I daresay they would be reluctant to cite drafts 
in their own papers as published. Let's hope the careful habits 
of the old world are still maintained in the new. I'm not 
optimistic....

Sandy Thatcher


At 6:58 PM -0500 1/18/10, Stevan Harnad wrote:

>The "version of record" (the publisher's proprietary draft) may 
>well be what librarians prefer, and are willing to wait out an 
>embargo for; it is no doubt also the version publishers prefer 
>we all wait for.
>
>But I hope it will be understood that the researchers whose 
>institutions cannot afford access to the version of record would 
>prefer not to wait, and would be perfectly happy with the 
>author's final, peer-reviewed, accepted draft (postprint) during 
>any publisher embargo period, rather than no access at all. 
>Authors too -- if they think it through (many still don't) -- 
>would prefer that would-be users had access to their refereed 
>final drafts rather than no access at all during any publisher 
>embargo period. And so would their institutions and funders. 
>Which is why an increasing number of institutions and funders 
>are mandating immediate deposit of the final draft, rather than 
>waiting for the version of record.
>
>Prominently missing or minimal about this Roundtable of 
>publishers and librarians were those who represent and 
>understand the needs of active, access-denied researchers (or 
>the funders and institutions of the authors of the works to 
>which they are denied access).
>
>Holding out for the version of record is for pedants and 
>preservationists. What research, researchers, their institutions 
>and their funders, students, teachers and the general public 
>need now is access to the refereed research itself, immediately 
>upon acceptance for publication, free for all, and not 
>accessible only to those whose institutions can afford the 
>subscription. If there's any point in publishing the findings at 
>all once they are refereed, revised and accepted, then there's 
>the same point in making them freely accessible to all 
>would-users as soon as they are accepted, no later.
>
>Meanwhile, the version of record can wait, and be waited for.
>
>Stevan Harnad