[GOAL] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
The issue that was raised (by Fred) under this subject thread was the possibility of subscription losses dues to Green OA archiving. Yes. But not the possibility of subscription losses because the publisher allows Green OA archiving. So it's okay to discuss the impact of actual archiving, but it's not okay to discuss the impact of publishers allowing archiving? 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? (And wouldn't that be a much more constructive response than Don't talk about that here!?) (That too can be discussed here -- but only to point out the deleterious consequences of such a policy for OA, and the self-defeating basis of such a cancellation policy.) Sorry, but I don't accept that limitation. Surely it ought to be okay to discuss such a policy beyond simply bringing it up in order to agree with a predetermined position on it. Since libraries comprise a substantial portion of journal subscribers, then surely it's substantially relevant to discuss how libraries might make cancellation decisions about Green OA journals. It is indeed. And if librarian's cancellation decisions are based on unthinking criteria that self-destruct -- namely, if a journal allows Green OA, cancel it -- it needs to be pointed out that this would be an excellent way to ensure that journals decide not to allow Green OA. And thereby slow the growth of Green OA. And thereby undermine the basis of the cancellation decision. Simply declaring such decisions to be unthinking is no substitute for actual discussion of them (and of the thinking that has been laid out concerning them). And a declaration of unthinkingness hardly justifies calling for the exclusion of such discussion. If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what the problem is rather than just saying that bringing up issues hurts the cause. (Such discussion may or may not end up lending support to your favored outcome — but is that really the filtering criterion we ought to impose on contributions to the conversation?) OA is not the filtering criterion for library lists dedicated to the library's budget problems. But it is certainly the filtering criterion for the gOAl, bOAi and sparc OA lists. Agreed. And since the issue Fred raised demonstrates a clear connection between OA policies and library's financial decisions (notably journal cancellations), it would seem that this discussion fits nicely through the filter — even if the discussion doesn't tend toward the particular conclusion one prefers. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Rick Anderson rick.ander...@utah.eduwrote: 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? Yes. If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what the problem is I did (and you've just repeated part of what I said above.. Here it is again: 1. 60% of journals are Green 2. No evidence that more articles from Green journals are made Green OA than articles from non-Green journals 3. Cancelling (needed) journals because they are Green rather than because they are accessible or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive (for user needs). 4. Cancelling journals because they are Green rather than because they are either unneeded or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive for OA. 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. 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. *Stevan Harnad* ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
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? Yes. See how easy that was? Here's how I would respond to that suggestion: 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. 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 http://bit.ly/1aOetHB 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. If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what the problem is I did (and you've just repeated part of what I said above.. Here it is again: 1. 60% of journals are Green 2. No evidence that more articles from Green journals are made Green OA than articles from non-Green journals 3. Cancelling (needed) journals because they are Green rather than because they are accessible or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive (for user needs). 4. Cancelling journals because they are Green rather than because they are either unneeded or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive for OA. 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.) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
The library community has to make up its own mind whether it is OA's friend or foe. (1) Cancelling journals when all or most of their contents have become Green OA is rational and constructive -- but we're nowhere near there; and whether and when we get there is partly contingent on (2): (2) Cancelling (or even announcing the intention to cancel) journals because they allow Green OA is irrational, extremely short-sighted, and extremely destructive (to OA) as well as self-destructive (to libraries). But I already have enough to do trying to get institutions and funders to adopt rational and constructive OA mandates that researchers can and will comply with. If libraries are not allies in this, so be it; we already have publishers whose interests conflict with those of OA. If it's to be the same with libraries, it's better we know it sooner rather than later. I suspect, however, that there might be a portion of the library community that would be strongly opposed to cancelling journals because they are Green, and precisely for the reasons I have mentioned. Stevan Harnad On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 4:05 PM, Rick Anderson rick.ander...@utah.eduwrote: 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? Yes. See how easy that was? Here's how I would respond to that suggestion: 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. 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 http://bit.ly/1aOetHB 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. If you see a problem with the explanation I laid out, please say what the problem is I did (and you've just repeated part of what I said above.. Here it is again: 1. 60% of journals are Green 2. No evidence that more articles from Green journals are made Green OA than articles from non-Green journals 3. Cancelling (needed) journals because they are Green rather than because they are accessible or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive (for user needs). 4. Cancelling journals because they are Green rather than because they are either unneeded or unaffordable is arbitrary and counterproductive for OA. 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.) 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. 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. 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. 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
[GOAL] Re: Cancelling because contents are Green OA vs. because publisher allows Green OA
The library community has to make up its own mind whether it is OA's friend or foe. And this is exactly the kind of rhetoric that gives certain sectors/members of the OA community a bad name. The problem isn't OA; the problem is the unwillingness to deal with OA as something other than revealed religion. This kind of talk may help us come up with an Enemies List, but it doesn't actually help us solve any problems — unless, of course, you've decided up front that the only solution to every scholcomm problem is OA. I suspect, however, that there might be a portion of the library community that would be strongly opposed to cancelling journals because they are Green, and precisely for the reasons I have mentioned. That was never in doubt, Stevan. The library community is not a monolith. Different libraries have different policies and practices. Publishers are not stupid — they don't think that just because one librarian says I'm more likely to cancel a Green-without-embargoes journal than a toll-access one, all other things being equal that every library is going to do the same thing. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources Collections Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 rick.ander...@utah.edu ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
