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

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Rick Anderson <rick.anderson at utah.edu>wrote:

>      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?
>
> Yes.


>  If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what
> the problem is
>

I did (and you've just repeated part of what I said above..

Here it is again:

1. 60% of journals are Green

2. No evidence that more articles from Green journals are made Green OA
than articles from non-Green journals

3. Cancelling (needed) journals because they are Green rather than because
they are accessible or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive (for
user needs).

4. Cancelling journals because they are Green rather than because they are
either unneeded or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive for OA.

5. Publicly announcing (as you did) that journals are to be
cancelled because they are Green rather than because they are either
unneeded or unaffordable is certain to induce Green publishers to stop
being Green and instead adopt and Green OA embargoes.

6. Library cancellation of Green journals will slow the growth of OA,
thereby compounding the disservice that such an unthinking (sic) policy
does both to users and to OA.

*Stevan Harnad*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130916/9cdbaed9/attachment.html