RE: Darnton on the Google settlement

["Sally Morris \(Morris Associates\)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>]

Re:  Sandy's last question - I have some data.

The Publishing Research Consortium has recently funded some 
analysis of the ALPSP report 'Scholarly Publishing Practice 3' 
(you will find a summary of the findings on the PRC website - 
www.publishingresearch.net - and a fuller report is due out very 
soon).

52% of publishers by number of publishers, and 86% by number of 
articles published, allow authors to self-archive the submitted 
version to one or more of the following destinations:  own or 
dept website, institutional repository, subject repository.  60% 
and 90% respectively allow this for the accepted version, but 
only 39%/10% for the PDF of the published version (although 
around 60% of authors misunderstand the misleading term 
'postprint' and believe that they can always or sometimes 
self-archive the published PDF)

Sally Morris
Email: sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk

-----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