RE: Versions

[Jan Velterop <velterop@biomedcentral.com>]

Heather Morrison [mailto:heatherm@eln.bc.ca] said:

> If the peer review and editing process is considered to be important, then
> it is important for authors and publishers to ensure that the final,
> edited work is the one that is published (with perhaps a link to more up
> to date information, if warranted).  The safest way to ensure this is if
> publishers provide the final, printable copy to the author for
> self-archiving in institutional or disciplinary repositories. Otherwise,
> even the author who is willing to self-edit and has the best of
> intentions, could easily make a mistake in copying the edits.

Heather is so right. This is open access publishing, in essence. The role
of the journals and publishers is effectively reduced to an agency that
organises certification. Self-archiving still needs journals for
certification/authentication. Open Access journals are geared up for that
role, not just allowing, but encouraging self-archiving and further
dissemination of the certified final version. Traditional journals, as
they seldom allow the final version to be self-archived and distributed
freely, are usually not. If and when they allow that, they should be
welcomed as basically open access journals, even if they charge
subscription fees (though it would be better if they were to make the
final version freely available themselves, too, of course, and not just
rely on self-archiving).

Jan Velterop