<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Couture Marc <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marc.couture@teluq.ca" target="_blank">marc.couture@teluq.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="FR-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><b>MC:</b> any contribution that will help to answer the following question “If Green OA goes from 20% to 100%, and if the demise of the subscription model ensues, when will subscription cancellation begin?” is relevant in my opinion.<u></u><u></u></span><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><u></u> </span></p>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>I agree. But the discussion here was not about about where along the interval 20% OA to 100% OA to cancel subscriptions. It was about cancelling journal subscriptions because the journals are Green, i.e., because they are among the majority of journals who do not try to embargo OA.</div>
<div style><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="FR-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><b>MC:</b> We may not like the hypothesis that embargo-free Green OA journals may be the first to be cancelled, but it is kind of logical, though from a very
limited perspective. </span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>"Logical" would not have been the word I used to describe it! And I have spelled out the reasons it is neither rational nor constructive -- reasons which just require thinking a few steps ahead, exactly as Finch/RCUK failed to do.</div>
<div style> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="FR-CA" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><b>MC:</b> And it’s a good thing that it has been raised here, in order to allow for the “OA community” to put the issue on a more general level, like when Stevan points out that actions or policies which may seem justified locally, because they
allow for short term savings, can be globally harmful in the long term.</span></p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>The short-term savings from cancelling Green journals because they are Green are the same short-term savings one can enjoy from arbitrarily cancelling any journal. The difference is that completely random cancellations have no systematic effect on OA: Systematically cancelling Green journals most definitely would.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>But this systematic longer-term consequence is so blindingly obvious that I can hardly imagine a librarian even contemplating the step unless (like publishers) their only interest was in their own bottom line. And when that bottom line is in conflict with the interests of OA -- which means research and researchers worldwide -- then, again, <i>exactly</i> like publishers, the librarians become adversaries of OA instead of allies. </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>(Ironic that it's precisely this sort of narrow self-interest with which librarians so often reproach publishers for libraries' plight...)</div><div style><br></div><div style>Stevan Harnad</div>
</div><br></div></div>