On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Rick Anderson <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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 [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
