[GOAL] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA

[Rick Anderson]

The issue that was raised (by Fred) under this subject thread was the possibility of subscription losses dues to Green OA archiving.
Yes. But not the possibility of subscription losses because the publisher allows Green OA archiving.

So it's okay to discuss the impact of actual archiving, but it's not okay to discuss the impact of publishers allowing archiving? Is it possible that what you really intend to do is suggest that just because a publisher allows all articles to be archived Green doesn't mean that the articles are actually available that way, and that it might be dangerous for a library to cancel in a knee-jerk way when a publisher makes that allowance? (And wouldn't that be a much more constructive response than "Don't talk about that here!"?)


(That too can be discussed here -- but only to point out the deleterious consequences of such a policy for OA, and the self-defeating basis of such a cancellation policy.)

Sorry, but I don't accept that limitation. Surely it ought to be okay to discuss such a policy beyond simply bringing it up in order to agree with a predetermined position on it.


Since libraries comprise a substantial portion of journal subscribers, then surely it's substantially relevant to discuss how libraries might make cancellation decisions about Green OA journals.
It is indeed. And if librarian's cancellation decisions are based on unthinking criteria that self-destruct -- namely, if a journal allows Green OA, cancel it -- it needs to be pointed out that this would be an excellent way to ensure that journals decide not to allow Green OA. And thereby slow the growth of Green OA. And thereby undermine the basis of the cancellation decision.

Simply declaring such decisions to be "unthinking" is no substitute for actual discussion of them (and of the thinking that has been laid out concerning them). And a declaration of "unthinkingness" hardly justifies calling for the exclusion of such discussion. If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what the problem is rather than just saying that bringing up issues hurts the cause.


(Such discussion may or may not end up lending support to your favored outcome — but is that really the filtering criterion we ought to impose on contributions to the conversation?)
OA is not the filtering criterion for library lists dedicated to the library's budget problems. But it is certainly the filtering criterion for the gOAl, bOAi and sparc OA lists.

Agreed. And since the issue Fred raised demonstrates a clear connection between OA policies and library's financial decisions (notably journal cancellations), it would seem that this discussion fits nicely through the filter — even if the discussion doesn't tend toward the particular conclusion one prefers.

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
rick.anderson at utah.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130916/1357989a/attachment.html