Stevan Harnad wrote: > I'm afraid I have to disagree. Since a Green journal is simply one > that gives its authors the green light to self-archive, all Gold > journals are eo ipso Green!
OK, touche. What I should have said is that if a journal is Green, it will not also be Gold. My question remains: do we want to encourage the development of Gold journals? If not, if the existence of Gold journals doesn't really matter, then I guess there's not an issue in my mind. (I stand by my original statement -- that authors will tend to publish in the venue that they think will give them the most prestige, regardless of whether it will give them the most readers -- but then, based on several things you've said during this exchange, you don't seem to actually disagree with that statement. It's almost as if you've gotten lost in a labyrinth of reflexive argumentation, and have lost sight of the question that instigated the exchange...) > Perhaps we're fooling ourselves if we imagine there is something else > about Gold that authors would or should desire, apart from the OA > that they can already get via Green! Of course Gold journals should be > encouraged and supported This is the part I don't get. If we're fooling ourselves to think that there's anything particularly attractive to authors about publishing in a Gold journal, then why is it a given that we should encourage and support the development of Gold journals? If Green is good enough for authors, readers and publishers, then what's the point of fostering Gold? ---- Rick Anderson Dir. of Resource Acquisition University of Nevada, Reno Libraries (775) 784-6500 x273 rick...@unr.edu
