<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Graham Triggs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:grahamtriggs@gmail.com" target="_blank">grahamtriggs@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote">
<div> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><b>SH:</b> But with post-Green Fair Gold, the production and distribution and their costs are gone</div>
<div>-- offloaded onto the global network of Green OA IRs. And the peer review costs are paid</div><div>for as a service (most sensibly, a no-fault service for the review, regardless of outcome).</div></div></div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div><b>GT:</b> There would of course be no implications to the quality of production, discoverability or usability of the research. It's as if you are saying simply making a PDF is good enough, when PDFs are not all created equal, and aren't always as portable as they should be.</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Nothing of the sort. The only function of post-Green Fair-Gold OA is peer review: no type-setting, no print edition, no online edition, no PDFs, no access-provision, no archiving. -- All of that will be offloaded onto the global network of Green OA repositories.</div>
<div style><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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><b>GT:</b> Maintaining a track record will inevitably involve higher (per-paper) costs than having a low standard - even if you were only paying for peer-review, on a per round basis.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div style>So what? $300 instead of $200? Worth it, if the peer review and track-record are higher quality.</div><div style> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div><div><b>GT:</b> <a href="https://scholasticahq.com/innovations-in-scholarly-publishing/announcement/one-of-the-biggest-bottlenecks-in-open-access-publishing-is-typesetting-it-shouldn-t-be" target="_blank">https://scholasticahq.com/innovations-in-scholarly-publishing/announcement/one-of-the-biggest-bottlenecks-in-open-access-publishing-is-typesetting-it-shouldn-t-be</a></div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>No type-setting.</div><div style> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><b>SH:</b> Pre-Green Fool's Gold, with all that other stuff bundled in, can cost from $1000-$5000+</div><div>per accepted articles.</div></div></div>
</div></blockquote><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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>My guess is that post-Green Fair Gold should cost around $200 per round of no-fault</div><div>refereeing (because the costs of rejected or multiply revised and re-refereed papers</div>
<div>
will not have to be borne by the accepted papers only).</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><b>GT:</b> Based on what? Is that the cost, or the price? What margins are you allowing for? How many rounds are there going to be (on average)?</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Based on 25 years as editor-in-chief of a rigorously peer-reviewed journal.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Number of rounds depends on quality of paper.</div>
<div style> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><b>GT: </b>And you've still not factored in the costs of running the IRs, of them being able to provide for all the accesses on top of what they do right now, or any provision for quality control, typesetting, etc. that somebody really ought to be doing if you want this to be useful.<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>What costs (per paper)? And what costs for "providing access"? We're talking about a server, disk-space and clicks.</div><div style><br></div><div style>
And the quality control was the peer review (remember)?</div><div style><br></div><div style>And no type-setting (remember)?</div><div> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div>
<div><b>GT:</b> And that's without any provision for being able to innovate in the delivery services provided - making things accessible from mobile devices, or possibly even in just making them accessible at all (nobody wants to fall foul of disability discrimination laws).<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>And sheltering the homeless and feeding the hungry.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Let's cross those bridges when we get to them. This is just about providing Green OA by depositing the refereed draft in the institutional repository immediately upon acceptance for publication...</div>
<div> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div></div>
<div><b>SH: </b>If it's hybrid Fool's Gold, then their payments may even be double-dipped.</div><div><br></div><div>The only evidence I've seen - e.g. Wellcome Trust's presentation - indicates the contrary.</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Say what...?</div><div style> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><b>GT:</b> And besides - if you are paying an APC for an article to be made open access, then you have entered into a contract with the publisher whereby they have to make it available openly, in accordance with the terms in that contract. They are only double-dipping if they are making it closed access and charging for it - in which case they are in breach of contract.<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>No, that's not what double-dipping means.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Double-dipping by a hybrid-Gold OA journal (i.e., a journal that charges institutions for subscription access and also makes those individual articles OA, free for all, for which the author pays an extra hybrid Gold OA fee).</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Subscription revenue + Gold OA revenue = double-dipping: Charging twice for the publication of the same article.</div><div style><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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div>
<div><b>GT:</b> What do you normally do when vendors are in breach of contract?<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>I have no idea what you are thinking about here, Graham. Hybrid Gold vendors are not in breach of contract unless they promise not to double-dip, and then do it anyway.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Not double-dipping would mean lowering subscription prices (for all institutions) by their fraction of the revenue from any Gold OA fee. </div><div style><br></div><div style>In this sort of Fool's Gold (double-paid but not double-dipped) the victim is the foolish payer for the Fool's Gold -- a payment from which all subscribing institutions get a rebate, the foolish payer's institution receiving exactly the same rebate as every other institution...</div>
<div style><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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div></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"><b>SH:</b> The much lower cost of post-Green Fair Gold (for peer review) will be single-paid</blockquote>
<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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div>out of a fraction of the institutional windfall subscription cancellation savings.</div>
<div>
And it will all be fair, affordable, scaleable and sustainable.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><b>GT:</b> When you really look at the total of what will need to be provided - even if you aren't paying a publisher for all of those services - then I don't believe the true costs will be "a fraction" (not globally anyway - there may be some small institutions that could benefit).</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Well, our beliefs differ. So let's just let Green OA and Green OA mandates proceed apace, and when we get to 100% Green OA, we'll find out who was right...</div>
<div style> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><b>GT:</b> <span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">But lets see how we get to those subscription cancellations. In order to do that, we have to look at publisher incentives. As you submitted to the BIS report:</span><br>
</div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/99/99we07.htm" target="_blank">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/99/99we07.htm</a><br>
</font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">"<span style="line-height:16.625px;font-size:13px">The UK’s new policy of funding Gold OA pre-emptively ... </span><span style="line-height:16.625px;font-size:13px">encouraging publishers to adopt or lengthen Green OA embargoes in order to makes sure UK authors must choose the paid Gold option."</span></font></div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Yes, that's why I strongly oppose Finch/RCUK. And your point is...?</div><div style><br></div><div style>Meanwhile, the immediate-deposit mandate (plus the facilitated eprint-request-Button) moot publisher Green OA embargoes.</div>
<div style><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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:16.625px;font-size:13px">Or, as stated here: </span><a href="http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-advocate-stevan-harnad-withdraws_26.html" target="_blank" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/oa-advocate-stevan-harnad-withdraws_26.html</a><br>
</div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">"You would offer to “allow” your authors to pay you for hybrid Gold OA ... you would ratchet up the Green OA embargo length ... to make sure your authors pay you for hybrid Gold rather than picking the cost-free option"</font></div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>There's no medicine for suckers who fall for Fool's Gold -- but there aren't many suckers falling for Fool's Gold (unless foolishly subsidized for it by the Wellcome Trust, or, unconsulted, the UK tax-payer, via David Willetts) -- so let's just let Green OA and Green OA mandates proceed apace, with the help of the immediate-deposit clause that moots publisher embargoes...</div>
<div style><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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">or even </span><a href="http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/open-access-emeralds-green-starts-to.html" target="_blank" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/open-access-emeralds-green-starts-to.html</a><br>
</div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">"publishers like Emerald are also trying to hedge their bets and clinch the deal by adopting or extending Green OA embargoes to try to force authors to pick and pay for the hybrid Gold option instead of picking cost-free Green"</font></div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Yup. But only the suckers will fall for it...</div><div style> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><b>GT:</b> Well, let's examine the RCUK policy. The decision tree is here:</span><br></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/99/9907.htm#a7" target="_blank">http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmbis/99/9907.htm#a7</a><br>
</font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Let's assume we're dealing with publicly funded research, and the publishers in question (Springer, Emerald) already offered a Gold option on their journals - so that's the first two questions taken care of.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">That leaves us with the last one: "Are APC funds available from research funder?", with two options - either pay for Gold, or archive for free with [up to] 12-24 month embargo.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">If, as contended, publishers were introducing / lengthening embargoes to force authors to pick Gold, then the embargoes would have to make a material difference to the choice made at this point.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Both Springer and Emerald embargoes are in line with the RCUK allowable limits for publicly funded research [published in hybrid journals]. So their adoption has no material effect on the choice made to go Green or Gold.</font></div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>That's because Springer (which, like Elsevier, has endorsed immediate, unembargoed Green for a decade) still endorses immediate unembargoed Green (as does Elsevier). The rest is just some new options plus some incoherent double-talk: Springer and Elsevier authors can still provide immediate, unembargoed Green, with Springer's and Elsevier's blessing.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>If Springer or Elsevier had indeed adopted an embargo as a consequence of Finch Folly, then that would have been an example of the perverse effects I described.</div><div style><br></div><div style>
Emerald did, and hence it is an example of the perverse effects I described.</div><div style><br></div><div style>An OA embargo is an OA embargo. And where there is one where there formerly wasn't, as a result of Finch/RCUK, that's the perverse effect (camouflaged under the publisher's magnanimously "complying with the Finch/RCUK policy").</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Have I missed your point? Or wasn't there one?</div><div style><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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><b>GT:</b> Clearly, they can't have been introduced to force authors into choosing Gold.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>They can't? Why not?</div><div style> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><b>GT</b>: So if not that, what? The obvious reason is not to force authors into choosing Gold, but in anticipation of a large number of articles now being made publicly available via Green.<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>The embargo is to forestall Green. The hybrid Gold offer is to cash in on the UK's fatuous subsidy for Fool's Gold. The RCUK "flow chart" said: prefer Gold over Green. What more evidence or incentives do you want?</div>
<div style><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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div></div>
<div><b>GT:</b> (Conversely, if a publisher really wanted authors to go Gold, then they have much easier and more effective means than embargoing Green. Namely, default routing via author-pays [aka Wellcome workflow], or simply converting to just being a Gold only journal).<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>I didn't say publishers want to offer (pure) Gold: Most are still leery about that. They want authors to go for hybrid Gold instead of Green. They thereby not only double-dip but hedge their bets.</div>
<div style><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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div></div>
<div><b>GT:</b> It's no surprise that a commercial publisher will seek to ensure that they have revenue to pay for their costs. Embargoes / deposit restrictions will likely be used to limit the risk of Green mandates, and if the mandates are considered too risky, they are under no obligation to provide a compatible deposit policy.<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Yes. But all of that is mooted by the immediate-deposit mandate (irrespective of embargoes).</div><div style> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></div>
<div><b>GT:</b> So the likelihood of getting to a point of cancellation before journals have converted to being entirely Gold is very low indeed. And even if it did - if we got to a point where there was a sudden mass-cancellation of journal subscriptions, would publishers [be forced to] downsize?<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Let's just let Green OA and Green OA (immediate-deposit) mandates proceed apace, and when we get to 100% Green OA, we'll find out whether and when institutions cancel and publishers downsize...</div>
<div style> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div></div>
<div><b>GT: </b>No. They'll just convert their existing publications to APCs, with the all (/most) of the services retained. Because authors will continue to use them.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>
</div><div style>Cancellation of subscriptions is not done by authors, but by institutions.</div><div style><br></div><div style>And hybrid Gold APC's are paid only by authors (except when foolishly subsidized by the Wellcome Trust, or the UK tax-payer). </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>But meanwhile let's just let Green OA and Green OA mandates proceed apace, worldwide, and when we get to 100% Green OA, we'll see what happens next...<br></div><div style><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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div></div><div><b>GT:</b> The only incentive for publishers to downsize the services they provide is if they can increase their profits by doing so.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Or their subscriptions have become unsustainable because of global Green OA...</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>And the titles of journals not willing to downsize to Fair Gold at that point will simply migrate to Fair Gold publishers that are...</div><div style><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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div></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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><b>SH:</b> I can keep on repeating this as often it takes, until people begin to understand</div><div>why it is premature and profligate to pay pre-emptively for pre-Green Gold. -- </div>
<div>I've done it with other things before (such as the need for Green OA, Green OA </div><div>mandates, Immediate Deposit, the Button, and the link to research evaluation)...</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div>
<br></div><div><b>GT:</b> You can repeat it as often as you like, but it won't change the fact that</div><div><br></div><div>a) you can only mandate authors, not publishers</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>
</div><div style>Green OA mandates only mandate authors</div><div style> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>b) authors can't afford to not publish</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>They don't need to afford anything: publication costs (and a lot more that's unnecessary) are paid by institutional subscriptions. Authors can publish wherever they like.</div>
<div style> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>c) businesses need to make a profit</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Yes, and your point is...?</div><div style> </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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><b>GT:</b> With that in mind, the best that you can hope for by mandating Green is a swift transition to Gold when it occurs. At the worst, Green mandates without guarantees from publishers could either be unfulfilled, or end up very costly for institutions, researchers and/or research.<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>I have no idea what you are saying or imagining here.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Green OA mandates generate Green OA.</div><div style><br></div><div style>
100% Green OA may or may not make subscriptions unsustainable. (I believe they well, but this is not about my beliefs or yours, it's about letting Green OA and Green OA mandates proceed apace...)</div><div style><br></div>
<div style>If universal Green makes subscriptions unsustainable, publishers will have to cut costs, downsize and convert to Fair Gold, or go out of business -- and then their titles will simply migrate to Fair-Gold publishers.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Institutions will be out of the subscriptions loop, and (a fraction of) their annual windfall post-Green subscription cancellation savings on incoming journals will be used to pay the affordable, sustainable Fair-Gold APCs of no-fault peer-review for their institution's own outgoing articles.</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 dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div></div>
<div><br></div><div><b>GT:</b> Either way, as embargoes are more likely to be introduced / extended with more Green mandates, you are only delaying the one thing that you claim is more important to you than anything else - immediate, unembargoed open access.</div>
</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>I have difficulty seeing how on earth you ever came to that conclusion from anything that I (or you) have said here, but beliefs are beliefs. I prefer to go by evidence, logic, and above all, pragmatics.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Stevan Harnad</div></div></div></div>