Rick I don't know if there is a way of getting a list, but I think you are conflating two things. I assume you are saying you would cancel if all of the content of the journal was available without embargo. Sherpa/Romeo doesn't tell you that - it just tells you whether or not the publisher allows green deposit without embargo.
And lots of publishers do - for the majority of papers in the majority of Elsevier titles, for example, the author is free to make available their papers - either pre- or post-prints. But as most authors don't take advantage of that offer I guess you'll not want to cancel Elsevier's titles. David On 16 Sep 2013, at 15:31, Rick Anderson wrote: > Is there an easy way (easier than searching title-by-title through > SHERPA/RoMEO) to get a complete list of journals offering Green access with > no embargo? I can't speak for the marketplace as a whole, but my library will > cancel most if not all of our subscriptions to any such journals — my > institution is not giving us money so that we can spend it on content that's > available for free. > > --- > Rick Anderson > Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections > Marriott Library, University of Utah > Desk: (801) 587-9989 > Cell: (801) 721-1687 > [email protected] > > From: <Friend>, Fred <[email protected]> > Date: Saturday, September 14, 2013 5:06 AM > To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" <[email protected]>, > LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[email protected]>, SPARC Open > Access Forum <[email protected]> > Subject: [sparc-oaforum] Re: Disruption vs. Protection > >> This is an excellent contribution from Danny Kingsley, and it would be >> interesting to have some real information about subscription loss from >> publishers, and not only from the two publishers she mentions. Very >> occasionally we do hear stories about a few journals ceasing publication, >> but the number appears very low by comparison with the total number of >> research journals published, and the causal link with repository deposit is >> obscure. A reduction in the quality of a journal (and I do not mean impact >> factor) or a reduction in library funding could be more influential factors >> than green open access. Presumably for commercial reasons publishers have >> not been willing to release information about subscription levels, but if >> they are to continue to use green open access as a threat they have to >> provide more evidence. >> >> Likewise if they expect to be believed, publishers have to provide more >> information about sustainability. They speak about repositories not being a >> sustainable model for research dissemination, by which they appear to mean >> that their journals will not be sustainable in a large-scale repository >> environment. Most institutional repositories are fully-sustainable, their >> sustainability derived from the sustainability of the university in which >> they are based. If any research journals are not sustainable, the reasons >> may have nothing to do with repositories. Those reasons are currently hidden >> within the "big deal" model, the weak journals surviving through the >> strength of other journals. Rather than blame any lack of sustainability >> upon green open access, perhaps publishers should take a harder look at the >> sustainability of some of their weaker journals. Repositories are >> sustainable; some journals may not be. >> >> Fred Friend >> Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL >> >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Danny >> Kingsley <[email protected]> >> Sent: 14 September 2013 08:39 >> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection >> >> It is not that there is not sufficient data, it is that the 'threat' does >> not exist. >> >> The only 'evidence' to support the claim that immediate green open access >> threatens the 'sustainability' (read: profit) of commercial publishers comes >> in the form of the exceptionally questionable ALPSP survey sent out early >> last year to librarians >> http://www.publishingresearch.net/documents/ALPSPPApotentialresultsofsixmonthembargofv.pdf >> . Heather Morrison wrote a piece on the methodological flaws with that >> survey >> http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/publishers-association-survey-on.html >> >> >> And yet, when questioned earlier this year by Richard Poynder, this is what >> Springer referred to as their 'evidence' >> http://poynder.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/open-access-springer-tightens-rules-on.html >> . >> >> There are, however currently two clear opportunities for the industry to >> collect some actual evidence either way (as opposed to opinions on a badly >> expressed hypothetical): >> >> Taylor & Francis have decided to indefinitely expand their trial of >> immediate green permissions to articles in their Library & Information >> Science journals. If they were to run a comparison of those titles against >> the titles in, say , three other disciplinary areas over two to three years >> they would be able to ascertain if this decision has made any difference to >> their subscription patterns. >> Earlier this year (21 March) SAGE changed their policy to immediate green >> open access – again this offers a clean comparison between their >> subscription levels prior to and after the implementation of this policy. >> If it is the case that immediate green open access disrupts subscriptions >> (and I strongly suspect that it does not) then we can have that conversation >> when the evidence presents itself. Until then we are boxing at shadows. >> >> Danny >> >> Dr Danny Kingsley >> Executive Officer >> Australian Open Access Support Group >> e: [email protected] >> p: +612 6125 6839 >> w: wwww.aoasg.org.au >> t: @openaccess_oz >> >> >> >> From: Dana Roth <[email protected]> >> Reply-To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Date: Saturday, 14 September 2013 6:53 AM >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> Subject: [GOAL] Re: Disruption vs. Protection >> >> Isn’t the fact that “The BIS report finds no evidence to support this >> distinction,” due to the fact that there isn’t sufficient data? >> >> I sense that we are going to have to live with (Green) OA and subscription >> journals for some time … and that it is the subscription model for >> commercially published journals will be increasingly unsustainable in the >> short term. >> >> An example of what could soon be unsustainable, is the commercially >> published ‘Journal of Comparative Neurology’ … that for 2012 cost its >> subscribers $30,860 and published only 234 articles. >> >> Dana L. Roth >> Caltech Library 1-32 >> 1200 E. California Blvd. Pasadena, CA 91125 >> 626-395-6423 fax 626-792-7540 >> [email protected] >> http://library.caltech.edu/collections/chemistry.htm >> >> From:[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Stevan Harnad >> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 8:39 AM >> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >> Subject: [GOAL] Disruption vs. Protection >> >> End of the gold rush? (Yvonne Morris, cilip): "In the interest of making >> research outputs publicly available; shorter and consistent or no embargo >> periods are the desired outcome. However, publishers… have argued that short >> embargo periods make librarians cancel subscriptions to their journals… The >> BIS report finds no evidence to support this distinction." >> >> I have long meant to comment on a frequent contradiction that keeps being >> voiced by OA advocates and opponents alike: >> I. Call for Disruption: Serial publications are overpriced and unaffordable; >> publisher profits are excessive; the subscription (license) model is >> unsustainable: the subscription model needs to be disrupted in order to >> force it to evolve toward Gold OA. >> >> II. Call for Protection: Serials publications are threatened by (Green) OA, >> which risks making the subscription model unsustainable: the subscription >> model needs to be protected in order to allow it to evolve toward Gold OA. >> Green OA mandates do two things: (a) They provide immediate OA for all who >> cannot afford subscription access, and (b) they disrupt the subscription >> model. >> >> Green OA embargoes do two things: (c) They withhold OA from all who cannot >> afford subscription access, and (d) they protect the subscription model from >> disruption. >> >> Why do those OA advocates who are working for (a) (i.e., to provide >> immediate OA for all who cannot afford subscription access) also feel >> beholden to promise (d) (i.e. to protect the subscription model from >> disruption)? >> >> University of Liège and FRSN Belgium have adopted -- and HEFCE and BIS have >> both proposed adopting -- the compromise resolution to this contradiction: >> >> Mandate the immediate repository deposit of the final refereed draft of all >> articles immediately upon acceptance for publication, but if the author >> wishes to comply with a publisher embargo on Green OA, do not require access >> to the deposit to be made OA immediately: Let the deposit be made Closed >> Access during the allowable embargo period and let the repository's >> automated eprint-request Button tide over the needs of research and >> researchers by making it easy for users to request and authors to provide a >> copy for research purposes with one click each. >> >> This tides over research needs during the embargo. If it still disrupts >> serials publication and makes subscriptions unsustainable, chances are that >> it's time for publishers to phase out the products and services for which >> there is no longer a market in the online era and evolve instead toward >> something more in line with the real needs of the PostGutenberg research >> community. >> >> Evolution and adaptation never occur except under the (disruptive) pressure >> of necessity. Is there any reason to protect the journal publishing industry >> from evolutionary pressure, at the expense of research progress? >> >> Stevan Harnad >> >> -- >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. > > > -- > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "SPARC OA Forum" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/a/arl.org/group/sparc-oaforum > > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected].
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
