); see pp. 00-00 and Figure 00. I discuss the 0000 version of the results in [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-0:HUL.InstRepos:0000000 Unanimous faculty votes], ''SPARC Open Access Newsletter'', June 0, 0000: "I don't dispute the Ithaka findings. In fact, I've often argued myself that scholars will choose prestige in their field over OA, when they have to choose. I've only tried to make clear that they rarely have to choose [here omitting citations to four earlier articles]....[I]t's not hard to reconcile this evidence with the evidence of the unanimous faculty votes [for university green OA policies]. The Ithaka finding is about gold OA, and the unanimous faculty votes are about green OA. Green OA policies allow faculty to submit their work to the journals of their choice. One of the primary reasons why OA mandates focus on green rather than gold OA (or repositories rather than journals) is precisely to [http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-0:HUL.InstRepos:0000000 preserve this sort of academic freedom]. When the high-profile journals in a field are TA, then a green OA policy allows faculty to have the best of both worlds: prestige from the journal publishing the article and OA from the institutional repository. It's not at all surprising that faculty, or faculty who understand their OA options, will take the best of both worlds when they can. That explains both the preference for high-profile journals and the support for green OA. Meantime, more and more OA journals are moving into the top cohort of prestige and impact in more and more fields, a second reason why authors rarely have to choose between prestige and OA...." + ** See my [https://conifer.rhizome.org/petersuber/peter-suber-g-blog-0000-0000/00000000000000/https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/