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