<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; ">
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;word-wrap:break-word"><span>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT:#b5c4df 5 solid;PADDING:0 0 0 5;MARGIN:0 0 0 5">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra"> 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?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="">Yes.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>See how easy that was? Here's how I would respond to that suggestion:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, you raise a valid point. Just because a publisher allows complete and unembargoed Green OA archiving of a journal doesn't mean that all of the journal's content will end up being archived. So I would adjust the categorical statement I made in my original
posting thus: "My library will cancel our subscriptions to any such journal, once we have determined that a sufficient percentage of its content is being made publicly available promptly and at no charge — promptness being assessed on a sliding scale relative
to the journal's relevance to our needs."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Obviously, this will be relatively easy to do for new Green journals or for journals that make the shift in the future. As for existing Green-without-embargo journals, I'm currently discussing with my collection development staff how we might cost-effectively
review the list of Green-without-embargo journal publishers found at <a href="http://bit.ly/1aOetHB">http://bit.ly/1aOetHB</a> and see which of their journals we currently subscribe to, and which of these we might be able to cancel. This would be a relatively
time-intensive project, but we have students working at service desks in my library who could probably help.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;word-wrap:break-word">
<div></div>
<div>If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what the problem is </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div style="">I did (and you've just repeated part of what I said above..</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">Here it is again:</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">1. 60% of journals are Green </div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">2. No evidence that more articles from Green journals are made Green OA than articles from non-Green journals</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">3. Cancelling (needed) journals because they are Green rather than because they are accessible or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive (for user needs).</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">4. Cancelling journals because they are Green rather than because they are either unneeded or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive for OA.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Depending on what our goals are, reality can sometimes be counterproductive. It's a reality that a subscription is less needed when the content of the journal in question is freely available online. (It matters, of course, what percentage of the content
really becomes available that way, and how quickly it will become available. But the more its content is free and the faster it gets that way, the less incentive there is for anyone, including libraries, to pay for access to it. And the tighter a library's
budget, the more sensitive its cancellation response will be to the Green-without-embargo signal.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div style="">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.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Discussing reality may not always help to advance an OA agenda (or any other agenda, for that matter), but eventually reality will always win. Scolding people for talking about reality is ultimately much more counterproductive than figuring out how to
deal with it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="OLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<blockquote id="MAC_OUTLOOK_ATTRIBUTION_BLOCKQUOTE" style="BORDER-LEFT: #b5c4df 5 solid; PADDING:0 0 0 5; MARGIN:0 0 0 5;">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div style="">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.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</span>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It doesn't seem to me that OA is something to which we owe allegiance. It seems to me that our goal should be a healthy, vital, and sustainable scholarly communication environment that brings the maximum possible benefit to the world. Deciding up front
that OA is the only road to such an environment has two seriously debilitating effects: first, it makes the questioning of OA, or even of specific OA strategies, into a thoughtcrime (as we've seen here today), and second, it precludes the consideration of
other, possibly promising options. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Why on earth would scholars look to those that can't or won't discuss these issues in a rational, reasonably objective way for guidance on how to conduct their own scholarly communication?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>---</div>
<div>Rick Anderson</div>
<div>Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections</div>
<div>Marriott Library, University of Utah</div>
<div>Desk: (801) 587-9989</div>
<div>Cell: (801) 721-1687</div>
<div>rick.anderson@utah.edu</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>