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

[Rick Anderson]

The library community has to make up its own mind whether it is OA's friend or foe.

And this is exactly the kind of rhetoric that gives certain sectors/members of the OA community a bad name. The problem isn't OA; the problem is the unwillingness to deal with OA as something other than revealed religion. This kind of talk may help us come up with an Enemies List, but it doesn't actually help us solve any problems — unless, of course, you've decided up front that the only solution to every scholcomm problem is OA.

I suspect, however, that there might be a portion of the library community that would be strongly opposed to cancelling journals because they are Green, and precisely for the reasons I have mentioned.

That was never in doubt, Stevan. The "library community" is not a monolith. Different libraries have different policies and practices. Publishers are not stupid — they don't think that just because one librarian says "I'm more likely to cancel a Green-without-embargoes journal than a toll-access one, all other things being equal" that every library is going to do the same thing.

---
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/20130916/38e6df65/attachment.html