Re: Roundtable Press Release (Access to Research Results)

["Joan Stein" <joan@andrew.cmu.edu>]

As an interlibrary loan specialist, I heartily support the idea 
of citing the version of record.  Trying to locate and acquire a 
variety of versions of a publication is a real nightmare for ILL 
and slows the process down as you work to clarify which version 
would be acceptable.

Joan Stein, Principal Librarian
Head, Access Services
Carnegie Mellon University Libraries
Hunt Library
Pittsburgh, PA  15213


On Wed, January 20, 2010 8:03 pm, Stevan Harnad wrote:

> On 1/19/10, Sandy Thatcher <sgt3@psu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>> 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....
>>
>
> Access the version you can access, but cite the published 
> version (i.e., the version of record). That's what citation 
> means: the canonical, archival version (if there is one), not 
> the particular xerox you may have actually passed your eyes 
> over. (But *please* let's not start again on the subject of 
> possible discrepancies: The contingency at the heart of OA is 
> when a would-be user has no access to the version of record. 
> That's when access to an author's final refereed draft is 
> infinitely better than no access at all. And infinitely more 
> important than the occasional discrepancy. Please keep that in 
> mind. And also that the version of record continues to exist, 
> for those who can afford access. OA is primarily a supplement 
> for the have-nots, not a substitute for the version of record. 
> OA will of course evolve into more than that; but at the core, 
> that's the rationale for OA: to supplement access for the 
> have-nots, now that the online era has at last made it 
> possible. OA is not, in the first instance, about reforming 
> publishing or copyright, though it will no doubt eventually 
> lead to that too...)
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>
>> 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