From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 20:56:05 +0000

Surely it is easy to think of other reasons for green open access. For
the Duke faculty, the decision to adopt an OA policy was primarily
motivated by two goals. The first was to increase the impact of their
work, and the second was to make it available to researchers and
students at under-resourced institution and in the developing world.
No one was naive enough to think that the license for Green OA was
about canceling library subscriptions. For one thing, green OA does
not "make journals free."  And there are sometimes good reasons to pay
for things that are also available free, when value-added services are
available.

I certainly hope that scholarship can free itself over time from the
grip of the large commercial publishers.  But that will happen, in my
opinion, because scholars will realize that those publishers are very
poor stewards of scholarship and will stop giving their IP to them. It
will not be because libraries drop subscriptions because some of the
contents of those journals are also available in institutional
repositories.  That contention just seems silly to me.

Kevin L. Smith, J.D.
Director of Scholarly Communication
Duke University Libraries
Durham, NC 27708


> On Sep 29, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Pilch, Janice T" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 03:16:50 +0000
>
> Why shame? Isn't it rational not to pay for something if you can get
> it for free? Why have such persistent efforts been made to make
> journals free if the goal is still to pay for them?
>
> Janice Pilch
> Copyright and Licensing Librarian
> Rutgers University
>
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 23:36:23 +0200
>
> The idea that SHERPA/Romeo, created as an index of publisher rights
> policies on author OA self-archiving should be used by librarians as a
> basis for journal cancellation is so absurd that it takes one's breath
> away.
>
> Shame on the (I hope very small) segment of the library community that
> is thinking along these perverse lines -- though the fault is partly
> with SHERPA/Romeo itself, for trying to be all things to all people,
> instead of just providing authors with the essential information they
> need, as originally intended: Does the journal endorse immediate Green
> OA self-archiving or not? If not, how long an embargo does it request?
>
> Stevan Harnad