<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:26 PM, David Wojick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
The USA has the lead here, as far as major funder mandates are concerned,
and they have opted for a 12 month publisher embargo form of green OA. I
have several articles on this at <br>
<a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/" target="_blank">
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/</a> <br><br>
Peter does not even discuss what is actually happening on the policy
front.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>On leads vs. lags and analysis vs argument, see:<br></div><div><br></div></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote"><p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica"><b><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1027-.html">Revealing Dialogue on "CHORUS" with David Wojick, OSTI Consultant</a></b></p>
</div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica"><br></p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica">The exchange is preceded by the following note (by me):</p>
<p style="margin:0px;font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;min-height:14px"><br></p>
</div></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_extra" style><div class="gmail_quote" style><div style><b style="color:rgb(50,51,51);font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px">Note: </b><a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about/" style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(0,51,102)">David Wojick</span></a><span style="color:rgb(50,51,51);font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px"> works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at </span><a href="http://www.osti.gov/home/" style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(0,51,102)">OSTI</span></a><span style="color:rgb(50,51,51);font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px">, 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. In the exchanges below, he sounds [to me] very much like a publishing interest lobbyist, but judge for yourself. He also turns out to have a rather curious [and to me surprising] </span><span style="color:rgb(0,51,102)"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_E._Wojick">history in environmental matters</a></span><span style="color:rgb(50,51,51);font-family:Verdana;font-size:13px">…</span> </div>
</div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div style>The topic continued (and continues) to be discussed on the Society for Scholarly Publishing's blog, "<a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about/">The Scholarly Kitchen</a>," where DW is a frequent contributor.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style><b>DW:</b> "Peter Suber is a leader of the OA movement. His article is an argument, not an analysis. He seems to be oblivious to what is actually going on…. Happy OA week."</div><div style>
<br></div><div style>And a Happy OA week to DW too...</div><div style><br></div><div style><b>Stevan Harnad</b></div><div style><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
At 12:50 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">
Dear David,<br><br>
Sorry, could you tell us why you have the opinion that the author of the
Guardian piece is oblivious to what is going on? What, in you eyes, is
the main thing he seems not aware of? <br><br>
Thank you,<br><br>
Jeroen Bosman<br>
-----------------------------------------------<br>
Jeroen Bosman, subject librarian Geography&Geoscience<br>
Utrecht University Library<br>
email: <a href="mailto:j.bosman@uu.nl" target="_blank">j.bosman@uu.nl</a><br>
twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman<br>
-----------------------------------------------------------------<br>
P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail<br><br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
[<a href="mailto:SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" target="_blank">
mailto:SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU</a>] On Behalf Of David Wojick<br>
Sent: woensdag 23 oktober 2013 18:24<br>
To: <a href="mailto:SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" target="_blank">SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU</a><br>
Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] OA<br><br>
Peter Suber is a leader of the OA movement. His article is an argument,
not an analysis. He seems to be oblivious to what is actually going
on.<br><br>
Happy OA week.<br><br>
David Wojick<br><br>
At 02:20 PM 10/22/2013, you wrote:<br>
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):<br>
><a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a><br>
><br>
>I post this without comment.<br>
><br>
><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op" target="_blank">
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op</a>
<br>
>en-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard<br>
><br>
>But I would be interested to hear listmembers
responses/reactions<br>
><br>
>BW<br>
><br>
>Quentin Burrell</blockquote></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>