<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=iso-8859-1"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 2013-09-29, at 2:40 PM, LIBLICENSE <<a href="mailto:liblicense@GMAIL.COM">liblicense@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">From: "Pilch, Janice T" <<a href="mailto:pilch@illinois.edu">pilch@illinois.edu</a>><br>Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 03:16:50 +0000<br><br>Why shame? Isn't it rational not to pay for something if you can get<br>it for free? Why have such persistent efforts been made to make<br>journals free if the goal is still to pay for them?<br></blockquote><div><br></div>For some reason it seems to be singularly difficult for some librarians</div><div>to grasp the difference between whether the articles in a journal are</div><div>all or mostly Green OA (which is not what we are discussing) and</div><div>whether the publisher does <i>not</i> embargo Green OA (which does not imply</div><div>that all or most of its articles are Green OA). </div><div><br></div><div>In fact, over 60% of publishers (and an even greater percentage of</div><div>journals) do not embargo Green OA, yet only about 20-30% of</div><div>articles are Green OA (and no one has even shown whether more</div><div>of these come from journals that do not embargo Green OA).</div><div><br></div><div>So what were you saying about its being rational not to pay for something</div><div>you can get for free? And what has it to do with the point under </div><div>discussion, which is cancelling journals because they do <i>not</i> embargo</div><div>Green OA?</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><br>Janice Pilch<br>Copyright and Licensing Librarian<br>Rutgers University<br><br><br>________________________________________<br><br>From: Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@gmail.com">amsciforum@gmail.com</a>><br>Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:36:23 +0200<br><br>The idea that SHERPA/Romeo, created as an index of publisher rights<br>policies on author OA self-archiving should be used by librarians as a<br>basis for journal cancellation is so absurd that it takes one's breath<br>away.<br><br>Shame on the (I hope very small) segment of the library community that<br>is thinking along these perverse lines -- though the fault is partly<br>with SHERPA/Romeo itself, for trying to be all things to all people,<br>instead of just providing authors with the essential information they<br>need, as originally intended: Does the journal endorse immediate Green<br>OA self-archiving or not? If not, how long an embargo does it request?<br><br>Stevan Harnad<br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>