From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 21:53:59 -0400

**************

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?

**************

For some reason it seems to be singularly difficult for some librarians
to grasp the difference between whether the articles in a journal are
all or mostly Green OA (which is not what we are discussing) and
whether the publisher does not embargo Green OA (which does not imply
that all or most of its articles are Green OA).

In fact, over 60% of publishers (and an even greater percentage of
journals) do not embargo Green OA, yet only about 20-30% of
articles are Green OA (and no one has even shown whether more
of these come from journals that do not embargo Green OA).

So what were you saying about its being rational not to pay for something
you can get for free? And what has it to do with the point under
discussion, which is cancelling journals because they do not embargo
Green OA?

Stevan Harnad