Stevan Harnad wrote:
> I'm afraid I have to disagree. Since a Green journal is simply one
> that gives its authors the green light to self-archive, all Gold
> journals are eo ipso Green!
OK, touche. What I should have said is that if a journal is Green, it
will not also be Gold. My question remains: do we want to encourage the
development of Gold journals? If not, if the existence of Gold journals
doesn't really matter, then I guess there's not an issue in my mind. (I
stand by my original statement -- that authors will tend to publish in
the venue that they think will give them the most prestige, regardless
of whether it will give them the most readers -- but then, based on
several things you've said during this exchange, you don't seem to
actually disagree with that statement. It's almost as if you've gotten
lost in a labyrinth of reflexive argumentation, and have lost sight of
the question that instigated the exchange...)
> Perhaps we're fooling ourselves if we imagine there is something else
> about Gold that authors would or should desire, apart from the OA
> that they can already get via Green! Of course Gold journals should be
> encouraged and supported
This is the part I don't get. If we're fooling ourselves to think that
there's anything particularly attractive to authors about publishing in
a Gold journal, then why is it a given that we should encourage and
support the development of Gold journals? If Green is good enough for
authors, readers and publishers, then what's the point of fostering
Gold?
----
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
(775) 784-6500 x273
rickand_at_unr.edu
Received on Wed Dec 15 2004 - 01:13:18 GMT