Re: Eprint versions and removals

From: Barbara Quint <>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 14:59:00 +0100

     [Moderator's Note: Replies follow each question below]

I've been watching this debate and something puzzles me.

Where are all these self-archived articles coming from?

    [Their own authors are self-archiving them.]

Do the "green light" publishers send digital copies back to the authors?

    [Some give the green light for the author to use the publisher;s
     PDF version, others only to use the author's own digital versioni.]

As an editor, I'm assuming that some of the text has been changed as it
goes through the editorial process.

    [Correct, especially from unrefereed preprint to refereed postprint.]

So are the self-archives of the edited "final" versions or of the author's
initial submissions?

    [If the green light is for the refereed, edited final version,
     that is what is self-archived; otherwise the preprint plus

Or would there be more than one version, e.g. an author's edition (like
a director's cut video) that includes portions that didn't appear in the
"printed" article as well as the published one?

    [Authors can self-archive all signitificant stages of their work,
    including pospublication corrections, updates and enhancements.
    The essential target of OA, though, is contents of the peer-reviewed
    final draft.]

barbara quint
editor, searcher magazine
932 11th st., suite 9
santa monica, ca 90403
310/393-6911 (fax)</PRE>

On Sun, 8 Aug 2004, Lee Miller wrote:

> Dear Stevan,
> "Open Access and the Future of Scientific Publishing" by Carrie Lock,
> recently appeared in *Science Editor*, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 22-23. This
> article, like many in the popular press, deals exclusively with open-access
> journals. The BioMed Central, PubMed Central, and PLoS models are briefly
> described. It does not once mention the possibility of placing an article
> in an open-access personal, institutional, or discipline archive while also
> publishing it in a peer-reviewed toll-access journal. Institutional
> archives are mentioned only in the context of some future model of
> publishing wherein journals will exist only to offer a Seal of Approval to
> archived articles.
> What bothers me about this article is that it did not appear in the popular
> press. It appeared in a professional journal for editors, published by the
> Council of Science Editors. This is an organization for which you presented
> a Keynote Address on self-archiving at their annual meeting in 2003. A
> report of that address appeared in the same journal last October:
> Miller, Lee. 2003. Author/Institution Self-Archiving and the Future of
> Peer-Reviewed Journals.
> A Report on the Keynote Address by Stevan Harnad at the 2003 Annual Meeting
> of the Council
> of Science Editors. Science Editor 26 (5): 150-151.
> As you and David Prosser have pointed out in this Forum, 84% of the 8242
> journals surveyed to date have given their authors the green light to
> self-archive their articles in open-access archives. It astonishes me that
> authors of articles on open access continue to pretend that open-access
> journals provide the only way to offer free world-wide access to their
> articles.
> When are authors going to wake up? They can increase the impact of the
> articles they publish in respected, well-established print journals simply
> by making those articles instantly available in open-access archives. The
> increased impact inevitably will increase the stature of the journals that
> published those articles. That's the message that many editors and
> publishers ... and authors of articles on open-access publishing ... seem
> to be missing.
> Lee Miller
> 185 Midline Road
> Slaterville Springs, NY 14881 USA
> (607) 539-7508
Received on Mon Aug 09 2004 - 14:59:00 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:47:33 GMT