Andrew H. Knoll is
* Fisher Professor of Natural History and
* Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences
* Curator of the Paleobotanical Collections in the Harvard University Herbaria
Browsing by Harvard-affiliated Author “Andrew Herbert Knoll” in “DASH” (
Digital Disappointing Access to Scholarship at Harvard, see http://archiv.twoday.net/stories/5918167) I found 100 articles.
Bambach, Richard K., Andrew H. Knoll, and John J. Sepkoski. 2002. Anatomical and ecological constraints on Phanerozoic animal diversity in the marine realm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99(10): 6854-6859.
One can read in DASH:
At the direction of the depositing author this work is not currently accessible through DASH.
But the article is free on the publisher’s website!
Publishers policy according “ROMEO”:
“Publisher’s version/PDF cannot be used in repository, but made be used on authors website”
The same case with the same publisher:
Free in DASH are 3 of 100 Knoll articles
Publisher’s PDF from UCP (ROMEO: “Publisher’s version/PDF may be used (encouraged)”)
“Publisher PDF may be archived 6 months after publication”
I cannot explain this exception: “Publisher’s version/PDF cannot be used” (Elsevier!)
The following is no complete list of free versions in the web – I didn’t check all 100 articles with Google Scholar.
isn’t free in DASH but in the web:
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~meech/NAIJC/papers/MeridianiPlanum_Science2004_AqueousEnv.pdf (and others)
Free (not legal?)
Free on publisher’s website (temporarily?)
Free on publisher’s website:
Not free, but should be free according the ROMEO list
CUP has the policy: “Publishers version/PDF may be used in an institutional repository or PubMed Central after 12 month embargo”
Not in the DASH list but free:
Some thoughts on this:
(i) The more authors an article has the more likely is that it is free in the web.
(Professor Knoll wasn’t until now a fan of self-archiving like his co-authors.)
(ii) Professor Knoll has deposited only publisher’s PDFs (or given a bibliography and DASH has downloaded them).
This confirms my Zurich ZORA hypothesis:
Scholars doesn’t like to deposit preprints or postprints even this is allowed by the publisher. They deposit PDFs because PDFs are citable.
(May be they delete electronic versions after publication, too.)
It seems that DASH has checked the publisher’s policies and made accessible 3 of the 100 eprints. In one case I cannot explain why the eprint is free, in another ROMEO says that OUP allows using the publisher’s PDF.
Please note that DASH has no eprint button. I have argued several times against it:
(I do not know if Harvard affiliated users can access the closed eprints. If not one can wait until Professor Knoll is 70 years dead and the copyright is expired. If they can this is only an advantage of the “happy few” at Harvard.)
(iii) It is not helpful for users that DASH doesn’t gives a hint if the link to the publisher’s version leads to free content.
(iv) Don’t trust in DASH! Scholars should always search for free versions in Google Scholar and if not found there in the Google websearch.
One cannot expect that DASH is so courageous to link to free versions in the web (these could be illegal ones).
(v) It is not possible easily to measure the effect of Harvard’s OA policy if one cannot filter no-free eprints in DASH.