From @Ocaasi: "Provide some very basic info on the review page about what they're looking for: a) is the link to the same paper (title, authors, abstract match)? b) is the link hosted appropriately (not a clear copyright infringement)?"
@Nikkimaria proposed the following:
- Is the existing link paywalled?
- Is the new link free to read?
- Are the two the same paper?
- Was the new link posted by its author or publisher?
- If the source is in SHERPA/RoMEO, is the new link version listed there?
I think I'm right in thinking that the user should answer yes to each of these?
for 4., we should not require that the paper is an author manuscript or anything like that, because some publishers allow the published version to be archived as well. We should only say that the document should not infringe copyright law, whatever that means in an international context.
I would remove 5. altogether as SHERPA/RoMEO does not track links to individual papers.
Broadly speaking, "the document should not infringe copyright law, whatever that means in an international context" is correct; however, the problem is operationalizing that for the average user. The reason I suggested including SHERPA/RoMEO is because it does track what the publisher allows to be archived.