On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM, David Wojick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>The Federal OA program is controlled by the Federal Government, so all
your talk of ceding control is just a rhetorical device. Neither the
fundees, the institutions nor the journals control it, except to the
extent that the journals make the publication decisions. So no one is
ceding control to anyone. And I repeat that the journals are part of the
community, a central part. (You are doing your private language thing
again. You do it a lot.)<br><br>
Under CHORUS the lead author merely has to check a box indicating the
funder. The institutions have to do nothing more, nor does the fundee.
The journal then gives the article link to the agency and makes the
article publicly available at the agency controlled time. This is
enormously simpler than creating repositories that fundees have to
populate and funders have to work with (and someone has to build and
maintain). In essence the article is published and the agency links to
it. That is all and it cannot be any simpler than this. Creating a
parallel universe of redundant repositories must be more complex, costly
and burdensome.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As far as I know, the publishers' CHORUS deal that you describe (and that I have referred to in my not-so-private language argument as a Trojan Horse) has not yet been accepted by the Federal Government, nor by its funding agencies.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Maybe they will accept it, maybe they won't. I and many others have been describing the many reasons they should <i>not</i> accept it.</div><div><br></div><div>You are repeating arguments about the redundancy and complexity and costliness of repositories to which I and many others have already replied. </div>
<div><br></div><div>But I am not trying to persuade you that researchers using their keystrokes to deposit in OA repositories is better for research and for OA than letting publishers do it for them: The ones I and many others are trying to persuade of that are the same ones that you and the rest of the publisher lobby are trying to persuade of the opposite: the Federal government and its research funding agencies.</div>
<div><br></div><div>May the best outcome (for the research community) win.</div><div><br></div><div>I want to close by reminding inquiring readers of just one of the many points that David Wojick and the other CHORUS lobbyists keep passing over in silence:</div>
<div><br></div><div>The Government directive is not to make funded research freely accessible 12 months after publication but <i>within 12 months of publication</i>. </div><div><br></div><div>The publishers' Trojan Horse would not only take mandate compliance out of the hands of fundees, making compliance depend on publishers rather than fundees, but <i>it would also ensure that the research would not be made freely accessible one minute before the full 12 months had elapsed</i>.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If I were a publisher, interested only in protecting my current income streams, come what may, I'd certainly lobby for that, just as I would lobby for the untrammelled cigarette ads and zones, if I were a tobacco company, interested only in protecting my current income streams, come what may; or for the untrammelled manufacture and use of plastic bags, if I were a plastic bag company with similar "community" interests.</div>
<div><br></div><div>CHORUS is a terrific way of locking in publisher embargoes and Delayed Access for years and years to come, thereby leaving payment for Fools Gold as the sole option for providing immediate OA. </div><div>
<br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><div>(Shades of Finch -- and RWA, and PRISM... The publishing lobby is a "part" of the research "community" indeed, heroically defending "our" joint interests! I'm ready for the usual next piece of rhetoric, about how un-embargoed Green OA would destroy journal publishing, and with it peer review and research quality and reliability... <a href="http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#38-worries">We've heard it all</a>, many times over, for close to 25 years now...)</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote type="cite">On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at
3:01 PM, David Wojick
<<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>There is no funder mandate on authors at this point, so you are
assuming a burdensome model that need not be implemented. <br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
Right now, there is a presidential (OSTP) directive to US federal funding
agencies to mandate (Green) OA.<br><br>
It is each funding agency that will accordingly design and implement its
own Green OA mandate, as the NIH did several years ago.<br>
<br>
The mandate (requirement) will, as always, be on the fundees: the
authors of the articles that are to be made OA, as a condition of
funding.<br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>The only mandate is on the Federal funding agencies to provide public
access to funder-related articles 12 months after publication. <br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
The presidential (OSTP) directive is to the US federal funding agencies
to mandate (Green) OA, meaning that all published articles resulting from
the research funded by each agency must be made OA -- within 12 months of
publication at the latest.<br><br>
The articles are by fundees. The ones bound by the mandates are the
fundees. Fundees are the ones who must make their research OA, as a
condition of funding.<br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>CHORUS does this in a highly efficient manner, rendering an author
mandate unnecessary. <br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
CHORUS does nothing. It is simply a proposal by publishers to funding
agencies. <br><br>
And to suggest that the the reason funding agencies should welcome the
CHORUS proposal is efficiency is patent nonsense.<br><br>
To comply with their funder's requirements, fundees must specify which
articles result from the funding. The few fundee keystrokes for
specifying that are exactly the same few fundee keystrokes for
self-archiving the article in the OA repository.<br>
<br>
No gain in efficiency for funders or fundees in allowing publishers to
host and time the OA: just a ruse to allow publishers to retain control
over the time and place of providing OA.<br>
<br>
Because of the monumental conflict of interest -- between publishers
trying to protect their current revenue streams and the research
community trying to make its findings as soon as widely as possible --
control over the time and place of providing OA should on no account be
surrendered by funders and fundees to publishers.<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Search is no problem as there are already many ways to search the
journals. <br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
And there are also already many ways to search OA articles on the web or
in repositories.<br><br>
So, correct: Search is no problem, and not an issue. In fact, it's a red
herring.<br><br>
What is really at issue is: in whose hands should control over the time
and place of providing OA be?<br><br>
Answer: Funders and their fundees, not publishers.<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>DOE PAGES, described in the first article I listed in my original
post, is a model of an agency portal that is being designed to use
CHORUS. It will provide agency-based search as well. CHORUS as well will
provide bibliographic search capability. <br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
To repeat: The same functionality (and potentially much more and better
functionality) is available outside the control of publishers too, via
the web, institutional repositories, harvesters, indexers and search
engines.<br><br>
The only thing still missing is the OA content. And that's what
publishers are trying to hold back as long as possible, and to keep in
their own hands.<br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>We simply do not need a new bunch of expensive redundant repositories
like PMC.<br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
And the research community simply does not need to cede control over the
locus and timetable of providing OA to publishers. <br><br>
<dl>
<dd>I am also beginning to wonder about your Trojan horse metaphor. The
Trojan horse is a form of deception, but there is no deception here, just
a logical response to a Federal requirement, one that keeps a journal's
users using the journal. The publishers are highly motivated to make
CHORUS work.<br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
CHORUS is all deception (and perhaps self-deception too, if publishers
actually believe the nonsense about "efficiency" and
"expense"), and the "logic" is that of serving
publishers' interests, not the interests of research and
researchers.<br><br>
The simple truth is that the research community (researchers and their
institutions) are perfectly capable of providing Green OA for themselves,
cheaply and efficiently, in their own institutional OA repositories and
central harvesters -- and that this is the best way for them to retain
control over the time and place of providing OA, thereby ensuring that
100% immediate OA is reached as soon as possible.<br><br>
Letting in the publishers' latest Trojan Horse, CHORUS, under the guise
of increasing efficiency and reducing expense, would in reality be
letting publishers maximize Delayed Access and fend off universal Green
OA in favor of over-priced, double-paid (and, if hybrid, double-dipped)
Fools Gold OA, thereby locking in publishers' current inflated revenue
streams and inefficient modus operandi for a long time to come, and
embargoing OA itself, instead of making publishing -- a service industry
-- evolve and adapt naturally to what is optimal for research in
the online era.<br><br>
Stevan Harnad<br>
<br>
At 02:09 PM 7/21/2013, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<dl>
<dd>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
<a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at
12:13 PM, David Wojick
<<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue,
so I see no Trojan horse. <br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>1. The "This" is US federal funding agency Open Access
mandates.<br><br>
</dd><dd>2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the
one who is bound to comply with the conditions of the funder
mandate.<br><br>
</dd><dd>3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible
free for all all on the Web<br><br>
</dd><dd>4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take
this out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the
hands of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate,
and indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all
on the Web.<br><br>
</dd><dd>5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be
outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the
mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it.<br>
</dd><dd>
<dl>
<dd>It is about the design of the Federal program, where I see no reason
for redundant Federal archiving.<br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>The web is full of "redundant archiving": the same document
may be stored and hosted on multiple sites. That's good for back-up and
reliability and preservation, and part of the way the Web works. And it
costs next to nothing -- and certainly not to publishers. (If publishers
wish to save federal research money, let them charge less for journal
subscriptions; don't fret about "redundant
archiving.")<br><br>
</dd><dd>PubMed Central (PMC) is a very valuable and widely used central
search tool. Its usefulness is based on both its scope of coverage
(thanks to mandates) and on its metadata quality. It borders on absurdity
for publishers to criticize this highly useful and widely used resource
as "redundant." It provides access where publishers do
not.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Nor does PMC's usefulness reside in the fact that it hosts the
full-texts of the papers it indexes. It's the metadata and search
capacity that makes PMC so useful. It would be equally useful if the URL
for each full-text to which PMC pointed were in each fundee's own
institutional repository, and PMC hosted only the metadata and search
tools. (Indeed, it would increase PMC's coverage and make it even more
economical; many of us are hoping PMC and other central repositories like
Arxiv will evolve in that direction.)<br>
</dd><dd>
<dl>
<dd>There is nothing in the CHORUS approach to the Federal program design
that precludes author self archiving in institutional repositories as a
separate activity. <br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>1. "This" is about US federal funding agency Open Access
mandates.<br><br>
</dd><dd>2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the
one who is bound to comply the with conditions of the funder mandate.
<br><br>
</dd><dd>3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible
free for all all on the Web. If authors self-archived of their own
accord, "as a separate activity," there would have been no need
for federal Open Access mandates.<br><br>
</dd><dd>4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take
this out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the
hand of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate,
and indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all
on the Web.<br><br>
</dd><dd>5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be
outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the
mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. <br><br>
</dd><dd>The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free
access only after a year after publication: They require them to provide
toll-free access within a year at the latest. Publishers have every
incentive to make (and keep) this the latest, by taking self-archiving
out of authors' hands and doing it instead of them, as late as
possible.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Moreover, funder OA mandates are increasingly being complemented by
institutional OA mandates, which cover both funded and unfunded research.
This is also why institutions have institutional repositories (archives),
in which their researchers can deposit, and from which central
repositories can harvest. This is also the way to tide over research
needs during OA embargoes, with the help of institutional repositories'
immediate Almost-OA Button.<br><br>
</dd><dd>And again, no need here for advice from publishers, with their
conflicts of interest, on how institutions can save money on their
"redundant archives" by letting publishers provide the OA in
place of their researchers (safely out of the reach of institutional
repositories' immediate Almost-OA Button).<br>
</dd><dd>
<dl>
<dd>The journals are part of the research community and they have always
been the principal archive.<br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>Journals consist of authors, referees, editors and publishers.
Publishers are not part of the research community (not even university or
learned-society publishers); they earn their revenues from it.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Until the online era, the "principal archive" has been the
university library. In the online era it's the web. The publisher's
sector of the web is proprietary and toll-based. The research community's
sector is Open Access.<br><br>
</dd><dd>And that's another reason CHORUS is a Trojan Horse.<br>
</dd><dd>
<dl>
<dd>With CHORUS they will be again. <br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>What on earth does this mean? That articles in the publishers'
proprietary sector will be opened up after a year?<br><br>
</dd><dd>That sounds like an excellent way to ensure that they won't ever be
opened up any earlier, and that mandates will be powerless to make them
open up any earlier.<br>
</dd><dd>
<dl>
<dd>After all the entire process is based on the article being published
in the journal. <br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>Yes, but what is at issue now is not publishing but access: when,
where and how?<br>
</dd><dd>
<dl>
<dd>It is true that this is all future tense including the Federal
program, but the design principles are here and now.<br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>And what is at issue here is the need to alert the Federal program
that it should on no account be taken in by CHORUS's offer to "let
us do the self-archiving for you."<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>I repeat, immediate access is not a design alternative. The OSTP
guidance is clear about that. So most of your points are simply
irrelevant to the present situation.<br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free
access only after a year after publication: They require them to provide
toll-free access within a year at the latest. <br><br>
</dd><dd>Immediate OA (as well as immediate-deposit plus immediate Almost-OA
via the Button) is definitely an alternative -- as well as a design
alternative.<br><br>
</dd><dd>But not if OSTP heeds the siren call of CHORUS.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Stevan Harnad<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you
wrote:<blockquote type="cite">
<dd>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
<a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a>
<font face="times new roman">On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 AM, David
Wojick
<<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more
important as an OA tipping point.<br><br>
<font face="times new roman">
</font></dd></dl>
</dd><dd>We are clearly not understanding one another:<br>
</dd><dd>Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if
they still need a tweak (as noted).<br>
</dd><dd>Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my
point.)<br>
</dd><dd>But no, Delayed Access is not OA, let alone Green OA, although that
is how publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green
OA.<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with
CHORUS.</dd></dl></dd></blockquote></dd></dl></dd></dl></blockquote></blockquote>
<br><br>
<font face="times new roman"><br>
<dd>Yes, that's the point: CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving
out of the hands and off the sites of the research community, to
put it in the hands and on the site of publishers. That is abundantly
clear.<br><br>
</dd><dd>And my point was about how bad that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for
the research community and the future of OA.<br><br>
</dd><dd>But the verb should be CHORUS "would be," not CHORUS
"is" -- because, thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th
publishers' Trojan Horse has been allowed in at all. <br><br>
</dd><dd>(The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the
"Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the
Finch Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates
and the research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th
publisher Trojan Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the
research community are working hard to keep it out!)<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal
submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no
burden on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly
available from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo
period. This is extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository
model.</dd></dl></dd></font>
<br><br>
<font face="times new roman"><br>
<dd>Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of
the future of OA.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a fait accompli, and the
hope (of OA advocates </dd></font>and the concerned research community) is
that it never will be.<br>
<font face="times new roman"><br>
<dd>The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed
Central, PMC) needs is an upgrade </dd></font>to immediate institutional
deposit, followed by automatic harvesting and import (after the allowable
embargo has elapsed) by PMC or any other institution-external subject
based <br>
<dd><font face="times new roman">harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate
model would be optimal (for the time being).<br><br>
</font></dd><dd><font face="times new roman">David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first
posting has since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will
have to take any further failures to understand it as willful, and
SIGMETRICS readers will be relieved to hear that I will make no further
attempt to correct it.<br><br>
</font></dd><dd><font face="times new roman">Stevan Harnad</font></dd>
<dl>
<dd>On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad
<<a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">amsciforum@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<dd>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
<a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a>
<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46
PM, David Wojick <</a><a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">
dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>> wrote:
</dd><dd>
<dl>
<dd>NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal
agencies are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter
period for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the
publishers or CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the
agencies will use the publisher's websites and articles instead of a
redundant repository like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US
Governments requirements, while trying to keep their users, so there is
no Trojan horse here, just common sense. Immediate access is not an
option in this Federal OA program. The OA community should be happy to
get green OA.<br>
<br><br>
</dd></dl>
</dd><dd>1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another
matter, not
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-Tilting-at-the-Tipping-Point.html" target="_blank">
the one I was discussing</a>. (But of course the pressure for the
embargoes comes from the publishers, not from the funding agencies.)
</dd><dd>2. The
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-CHORUS-Yet-Another-Trojan-Horse-from-the-Publishing-Industry.html" target="_blank">
Trojan Horse</a> would be funding agencies foolishly accepting
publishers' "CHORUS" invitation to outsource author
self-archiving, -- and hence compliance with the funder mandate -- to
publishers, instead of having fundees do it themselves, in their own
institutional repositories.
</dd><dd>3. To repeat: Delayed Access is not Open Access -- any more than Paid
Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access,
toll-free, for all.
</dd><dd>4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research
access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with
obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible.
All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer
review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for
themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a
fraction of what institutions are paying publishers now for
subscriptions.
</dd><dd>5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA.
But OA means immediate access, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor
Gold OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a
publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free
access on their website after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but
it's not really OA at all if it's not immediate. And that's why it's so
important to upgrade all funder mandates to make them immediate-deposit
mandates, even if they are not immediate-OA mandates.)<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why
did you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of
up to 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a
paradigm of open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently
making your own language.<br>
<br><br>
</dd></dl>
</dd><dd>Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA
used, paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually
(mildly) criticizing the study in question for failing to distinguish
Open Access from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had
reached the "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not --
specifically because of publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary,
still attached below: I don't think there is any ambiguity at all about
what I said and meant.]<br>
</dd><dd>But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes
<a href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/" target="_blank">for the time being</a> --
as long as deposit is mandated to be done
<a href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html" target="_blank">
immediately</a> upon acceptance for publication, by the author, in the
author's institutional repository, and not a year later, by the
publisher, on the publisher's own website. Access to the author's deposit
can be set as OA during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile
authors can provide Almost-OA via their repository's facilitated
<a href="https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy" target="_blank">Eprint
Request Button</a>.<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html" target="_blank">
The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and
Model</a><br><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-guid.html" target="_blank">
Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI)</a>
</dd><dd>
</dd><dd><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/991-.html" target="_blank">
Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access
Mandate</a></dd></dl></dd></blockquote></dd></dl>
<dd>
<dl>
<dd><a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM,
Stevan Harnad
<</a><a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">amsciforum@GMAIL.COM</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<dd><font face="times new roman">
<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56
PM, David Wojick <</a><a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">
dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>> wrote:
</font></dd><dd><font face="times new roman">
<dl>
<dd>The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles
based even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of
12 months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS
that meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website.
Many of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will
significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is
implemented over the next few years.</dd></dl></font></dd></blockquote></dd>
</dl></dd>
<dd>[David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation
at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the
Office of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic
and philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil
engineering.] <br>
<font face="times new roman"><br>
</font></dd><dd><font face="times new roman">Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken
in by this publisher Trojan Horse called
"<a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/scientific-publishers-offer-solu.html" target="_blank">
CHORUS</a>." It is tripping point, not a tipping
point.<br><br>
</font></dd><dd><font face="times new roman">If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means
free online access immediately upon publication, not access after a
one-year embargo.<br><br>
</font></dd><dd><font face="times new roman">CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving
<a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&sclient=psy-ab&q=(lobbying+OR+lobby)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=(lobbying+OR+lobby)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&gs_l=serp.3...14364.16642.0.17599.8.8.0.0.0.0.165.748.7j1.8.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.9T7OcUOL6gE&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=1260&bih=674" target="_blank">
anti-Open Access (OA) lobbying</a> by the publishing industry. Previous
incarnations have been the
"<a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&sclient=psy-ab&q=(prism+OR+pitbull+OR+pit-bull)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=(prism+OR+pitbull+OR+pit-bull)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&gs_l=serp.3...41865.56372.1.57067.38.30.8.0.0.0.129.2666.28j2.30.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.oY8Xj19aWIM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=1260&bih=674" target="_blank">
PRISM coalition</a>" and the
"<a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22research+works+act%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=%22research+works+act%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&gs_l=serp.3...15413.22277.0.23563.20.20.0.0.0.1.137.1792.17j3.20.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.JkaNf1Hb3Oc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=1260&bih=674" target="_blank">
Research Works Act</a>."
<dl>
<dd>1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it
is optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast
R&D industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying
public that funds the research.
</dd><dd>2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and
their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and
applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue
streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and
must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has
opened up for research, not vice versa!
</dd><dd>3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research
institutions (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the
world -- are increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See
<a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/" target="_blank">ROARMAP</a>.
</dd><dd>4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of
OA to research progress by imposing
<a href="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=UTF-8&tbm=blg&tbs=qdr:m&num=100&c2coff=1&safe=active#q=embargo+OR+embargoes+OR+embargoed+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=xemwUeqMEOSwyQGjn4DgBg&ved=0CBsQpwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47534661,d.aWc&fp=41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=1260&bih=672" target="_blank">
embargoes</a> of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and
should be
<a href="http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/delayed/laakso_bj_rk_delay_preprint.pdf" target="_blank">
immediate</a> in the online era.
</dd><dd>5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA
out of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both
the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA.
</dd><dd>6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which
already consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is
attempting to do this under the pretext of saving "precious research
funds" for research!
</dd><dd>7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and
institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in
their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple
purposes.
</dd><dd>8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for
research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers.
</dd><dd>9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and
the insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of
the research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA.
</dd><dd>10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the
Research Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses,
promoting the publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests
of research.</dd></dl></font></dd>
<br>
<dd><font face="times new roman">Let the the US Government not be taken
in this time either.<br><br>
</font></dd><dd><font face="times new roman">[And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent
the interests of the research community rather than those of the
publishing industry?]<br><br>
</font></dd><dd><font face="times new roman">Eisen, M. (2013)
</font></dd><a href="http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1382" target="_blank">A CHORUS of
boos: publishers offer their “solution” to public access</a><br><br>
<dd>Giles, J. (2007)
<a href="http://cwis.usc.edu/hsc/nml/assets/AAHSL/Nature_PR%20Pit%20Bull%2007-0124.pdf" target="_blank">
PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access</a>. Nature 5 January 2007.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Harnad, S. (2012)
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.htm" target="_blank">
Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag
The Public Research Dog, Yet Again</a>. Open Access Archivangelism 287
January 7. 2012
<dl>
<dd><font face="times new roman">At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad
wrote:</font>
</dd></dl><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<dd><font face="times new roman">Summary: The findings of Eric
Archambault’s (2013) pilot study
“<a href="http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/ISSI-ARchambeault.pdf" target="_blank">
The Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age</a>” on the percentage of
OA that is currently available are very timely, welcome and promising.
The study finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that
are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, when in
that 5-year interval the articles were made OA. Hence the study cannot
indicate what percentage of articles being published in 2013 is being
made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles
published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is
through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA,
immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline.<br><br>
</font></dd><dd><font face="times new roman">See:
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html" target="_blank">
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html</a>
</font></dd></blockquote></dd><br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>