From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:42:31 -0400

No one is calling anyone a Luddite, Chuck.  Or if someone is, which
side is Ned Ludd on?  I don't see this as a tech matter at all.

The ARL note you pointed to is an unfortunate document. It is
unfortunate because someone is not listening.  Not listening is easy.

Green OA did not suddenly become a bad idea.  It was always a bad
idea.  Gold OA is very different.  It demonstrably works.  So this is
not a discussion about OA, but about a species of OA, and a species of
OA only under very extreme circumstances.

Hybrid OA seems to work at this time, but the jury is still out.  At
what point do hybrid journals get cancelled because the bulk of their
content is OA?  I don't know.  There are so many other things that
lead to cancellations (Green OA among them, but it's a bit player)
that it's hard to pin anything on hybrids yet.  Some large publishers
with lots of internal data may have informed opinions about this, but
they are not sharing that data with anyone.

This topic has a history.  Will digital editions result in the
cancellation of print journals?  That was once upon a time a lively
topic.  Now we know the answer.  Will the inclusion of journals in
aggregations result in the cancellation of individual subscriptions?
That also was a lively topic of debate, but now publishers know the
answer to that.  Will remote digital access from libraries result in a
decline in society memberships?  Now we know the answer to that one.
Over time new media erodes the base of established media.  It can take
a long time.

The woods next to my house are full of rabbits--because, well, they
breed like rabbits.  I wonder how many will get through the winter.
Some will.  But in a harsher environment, with fierce competition for
resources, some will perish.

So when a collections librarian has only enough money to purchase one
more subscription, but there are two that he or she would like, how is
that decision to be made?  Green OA here will be a factor--one factor
of many.  This is why I say that Green OA is a problem only at the
margin.

What is so troubling about this discussion is that no one is
listening.  This is not a discussion even about Green OA. It's a
question of what do you do when your resources are tapped out.  It's a
matter of imagining how to think in adverse circumstances, like our
poor rabbits.  What we say is unacceptable in good times becomes a
matter of grim determination in bad times.  Please don't vilify Rick
for having the strength to contemplate bad times.  We all know that
not all of those rabbits are going to make it.

Joe Esposito


On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 5:54 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 01:16:55 +0000
>
> Yes Rick, You have restated the key point of those who disagree with
> you. You are proposing the destruction of Green OA journals with your
> policy if followed to its logical end, as you say below. Joe Esposito
> clearly understands the implications while he lauds you talking
> "common sense" to all us luddites.
>
> IF there were any evidence libraries were willing to do what you
> propose, then there would be cause for concern. So far, however, you
> seem to be in the tiny but vocal minority, with as the ARL Blog Post
> indicates with it's title, potentially costly and large consequences.
>
> Some here might have missed the ARL post, but it says it all in the title:
>
> Canceling Green OA Journals: A Very Expensive Way to Not Save Money
> (while impeding your community’s access):  http://policynotes.arl.org/
>
> Your point is one that's been made to you countless times in this
> prolonged exchange from multiple individuals... you say
>
> "More to the point, I have to wonder what is going to happen to the
> publishers on whom Green OA depends, once Green has taken over to the
> point that libraries can (as you put it) "rational(ly) and
> constructive(ly)" cancel all their subscriptions. With all the
> subscriptions cancelled, how will publishers continue to provide the
> services on which the Green OA model depends for its viability?"
>
> That is the issue underlying the critiques to your proposal.
>
> Chuck