From: Sally Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:58:01 +0100

There seems to be confusion here - are we talking about cancellation
where libraries can supply (enough of) their patrons' needs via OA
versions of articles, or cancellation as 'punishment' for 'bad'
publishers?  The latter seems to be like cutting off your nose to
spite your face, if I may say so

Sally

Sally Morris
South House, The Street, Clapham
Worthing, West Sussex, UK  BN13 3UU
Email:  [log in to unmask]


________________________________

From: Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:46:17 -0400

Thank you for this useful digest of a complex discussion.

Just one point where I fully agree with Stevan Harnad: libraries
should not choose preferentially to cancel green journals; after all,
green journals are being more or less cooperative in accepting to fall
under the green label (I will leave aside the various green flavours).
On the other hand, journals that refuse any collaboration with the
green strategy, i.e. that refuse any form of self-archiving or impose
unreasonable embargoes, could be usefully targeted. That ought to help
the green strategy quite a bit.

I realize that some of these recalcitrant journals may be highly
desirable from the researchers' perspective, but that would open the
possibility of a useful, pedagogic, dialogue between librarians and
researchers. The latter, let us remember, ignore (and often remain
intent on ignoring) the pain of licence prices.

Jean-Claude Guédon