<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra" style>Apologies to the SIGMETRICS list if this thread is of insufficient interest. I propose moving it to the sparc-oaforum.</div><div class="gmail_extra" style><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">
David Wojick wrote:<br><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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>I fear we are talking past each other Stevan. </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica">No, we are not talking past. There are simply three different topics: </span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica">(1) Peter Suber's understanding of OA (versus your own, David), </span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica">(2) practical considerations about how the OSTP mandate should be implemented, </span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica">and </span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica">(3) speculations about the future of refereed journal publishing</span></div><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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>I am talking about what is actually happening here, which is that the non-NIH US agencies are implementing the OSTP mandate for a 12 month delayed access program, just as NIH already does. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica">That <a href="https://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#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=ostp+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg">OSTP</a> mandates providing OA within a year (at most) is well-known.</span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica"><br></span></div><div style><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica">How the mandates will be formulated and implemented by each agency is definitely not well-known, nor even fully decided as yet: it is still being worked on, agency by agency (and I'm sure Peter Suber, Heather Joseph, Alma Swan and others with expertise in OA and OA mandates are being consulted).</span></div>
<div style><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica"><br></span></div><div style><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica">The most important practical implementation issues are:</span></div><div style>
<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica"><br></span></div><div style><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica"><b>#1</b> <b><u>Who</u> must make the paper OA?</b> the fundee or the publisher? Obviously for a </span><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica">uniform, systematically verifiable mandate,<i> it must be the fundee, the one bound by the mandate</i>, and not the publisher, the one that is in conflict of interest with the mandate, and not bound to comply with it (except if paid extra money).</font></div>
<div style><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><br></font></div><div style><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><b>#2 <u>Where</u> must the paper be made OA? </b>Here again, </font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica">for a </span><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica">uniform, systematically verifiable mandate, it must be in one verifiable locus, and the only locus shared by all fundees, all funders and all institutions (and for both Green and Gold OA) is <i>the fundee's own institutional repository</i> - from whence it can be exported or harvested to other sites, such as PubMed Central, if and when needed.</font></div>
<div style><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><br></font></div><div style><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><b>#3</b> <b><u>When</u> must the paper be made OA</b>? (The mandate already stipulates this: within 12 months of publication at the latest.)</font></div>
<div style><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><br></font></div><div style><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><b>#4 <u>When</u> must the paper be <u><i>deposited</i></u>? </b>This is the most important question of all, and carries with it the answer to the other questions:<i> </i>the fundee must deposit the final, refereed, accepted draft,<i> immediately upon acceptance for publication -- not 12 months after publication -- </i>irrespective of whether it is published in a subscription journal or a Gold OA journal, </font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica">irrespective of whether the deposit is immediately made OA or embargoed, and </span><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Helvetica">irrespective of whether the journal endorses immediate OA or imposes an OA embargo.</span></div>
<div style><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><i><br></i></font></div><div style><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica">It is <b>#4</b> that holds the key to a successful and effective OA mandate, the Liège model "Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access" model (which Peter Suber calls the "Dual Deposit/Release" model). The model has been tried and tested, and has already proven to be more effective than any other mandate model, and is both compatible with and subsumes all the other mandate models.</font></div>
<div style><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><br></font></div><div style><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica">The key to the Liège model's success is that it is convergent and systematic rather than divergent and anarchic, mobilizing the <i>universal source of all research, </i>funded and unfunded, Green, Grey and Gold, across all disciplines -- <i>the fundee's own institution</i> -- to monitor and ensure timely compliance as well as to tide over any embargo with the repository's facilitated copy-request Button.</font></div>
<div style><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><br></font></div><div style><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica">All of this depends on requiring deposit, by the fundee, in the institutional repository, <i>immediately upon acceptance for publication</i>, which is the only universal, objective, verifiable calendar date of reference for timely compliance. (Publication dates diverge wildly from both the acceptance date and the actual date of appearance of the journal. Whereas a 12 month embargo is the number to beat, publication date can lead to an uncertainty of as much as two years or more.)</font></div>
<div style><font color="#000000" face="Helvetica"><br></font></div><div style>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:115%;font-family:Arial">Gargouri, Y., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y.,
Brody, T., Carr, L., & Harnad, S. (2012a). Testing the Finch Hypothesis on
Green OA Mandate Ineffectiveness. <i>arXiv
preprint</i> arXiv:1210.8174. </span><span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.8174"><span style="line-height:115%;font-family:Arial">http://arxiv.org/pdf/1210.8174</span></a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:115%;font-family:Arial"><br></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-CA" style="line-height:115%;font-family:Arial">Rentier, B., & Thirion, P. (2011). <i>The Liège ORBi model: Mandatory policy
without rights retention but linked to assessment processes</i>. </span><span lang="EN-CA"><span style="line-height:115%;font-family:Arial"><a href="http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/102031">http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/102031</a></span></span></p>
</div><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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>If you know of an agency that is doing something else I would like to hear about it. Note that NIH has half of the Federal basic research budget so this is merely rounding out the existing program. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>No U.S. funding agency has yet adopted the immediate-deposit clause, but it has been adopted by the <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-.html">FNRS</a> in Belgium, and has been proposed by <a href="https://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#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=harnad+hefce+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg">HEFCE</a> in the UK. It is also implicit (though not yet implemented or enforced) in the <a href="https://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#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=harvard+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">Harvard</a> mandate model.</div>
<div style> </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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>The only big issue at this point is whether the non-NIH agencies will collect and post accepted manuscripts, as NIH does, but perhaps via SHARE repositories, or use CHORUS and link to the publisher websites. <br>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style>You leave out the most important option of all, which is that all papers are deposited in the fundee's own institutional repository (and exported if/when desired, to institution-external repositories).</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>And of course on no account should the depositor or the locus be the publisher (although of course the institutional repository can and will also link to the version on the publisher's site, whether subscription or Gold, OA or embargoed). </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>I would like to draw everyone's attention again to the fact that David Wojick is pressing for (and takes into account) only the solution that favors the interests of the refereed journal publishing industry, not the interests of research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, and the tax-paying public that pays for it all. </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>David seems to have OSTI's ear (I am not sure why) but I hope that OSTI listens also to those who represent the interests of the research community rather than the publishing community. </div>
<div style><br></div><div style>And I hope all the other US funding agencies are likewise taking advice on implementation from those who represent the interests of the research community rather than the publishing community.</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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div></div><div>On Oct 23, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">amsciforum@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite">
<div>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>
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:06 PM, David Wojick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank"></a><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:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
Oh I see, Stevan. The subscription journals go out of business, just as I
thought. I was afraid I had missed something in the analysis. Glad we
agree.<br><br>
To return to the original point, at this time the US Government has no
interest in driving the subscription publishers out of business.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Downsizing to post-Green Fair-Gold is not going Out-of-Business. It is just evolving into Fair-Business.</div>
<div><br></div><div>But perhaps that is not so obvious if one is lobbying for preserving the current revenue streams of the refereed journal publishing business... </div><div><br></div><div>For effective Green mandates to prevail globally, the publishing tail must no longer be allowed to keep wagging the research dog (tax-payer-fed). I hope OSTI will also be hearing impartial advice as to what will be best for research, researchers, and the tax-payers' investment therein.<br>
</div><div><br></div><div><div>Don't worry, though. Publishers will adapt; journals will survive (because peer review will survive, as a service) and everyone will get used to the new post-Green status quo.</div>
<div><br></div></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><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><br>
At 02:43 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Adminstrative info for
SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
<a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">
</a><a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a> <br>
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:26 PM, David Wojick
<<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>
> wrote:<br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>As I understand it your position is that all published articles
should be immediately available for free. My question is why then anyone
would subscribe to a journal? I am sure you have an answer but I have no
idea what it is, as your proposal seems to defy the basic laws of
economics. Immediate deposit seems to be self defeating. What have I
missed?<br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
Here's what you have missed: <br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>Harnad, Stevan (2007)
<a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265753/" target="_blank">The Green Road to Open
Access: A Leveraged Transition</a>. In, Anna, Gacs (ed.) The Culture of
Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age. ,
L'Harmattan, 99-105.<br><br>
</dd><dd>SUMMARY: What the research community needs, urgently, is free
online access (Open Access, OA) to its own peer-reviewed research output.
Researchers can provide that in two ways: by publishing their articles in
OA journals (Gold OA) or by continuing to publish in non-OA journals and
self-archiving their final peer-reviewed drafts in their own OA
Institutional Repositories (Green OA). OA self-archiving, once it is
mandated by research institutions and funders, can reliably generate 100%
Green OA. Gold OA requires journals to convert to OA publishing (which is
not in the hands of the research community) and it also requires the
funds to cover the Gold OA publication costs. With 100% Green OA, the
research community's access and impact problems are already solved. If
and when 100% Green OA should cause significant cancellation pressure (no
one knows whether or when that will happen, because OA Green grows
anarchically, article by article, not journal by journal) then the
cancellation pressure will cause cost-cutting, downsizing and eventually
a leveraged transition to OA (Gold) publishing on the part of journals.
As subscription revenues shrink, institutional windfall savings from
cancellations grow. If and when journal subscriptions become
unsustainable, per-article publishing costs will be low enough, and
institutional savings will be high enough to cover them, because
publishing will have downsized to just peer-review service provision
alone, offloading text-generation onto authors and access-provision and
archiving onto the global network of OA Institutional Repositories. Green
OA will have leveraged a transition to Gold OA.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>Harnad, Stevan (2010)
<a href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html" target="_blank">No-Fault
Peer Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied
or Delayed</a>. D-Lib Magazine, 16, (7/8)<br><br>
</dd><dd>SUMMARY: Plans by universities and research funders to pay the
costs of Open Access Publishing ("Gold OA") are premature.
Funds are short; 80% of journals (including virtually all the top
journals) are still subscription-based, tying up the potential funds to
pay for Gold OA; the asking price for Gold OA is still high; and there is
concern that paying to publish may inflate acceptance rates and lower
quality standards. What is needed now is for universities and funders to
mandate OA self-archiving (of authors' final peer-reviewed drafts,
immediately upon acceptance for publication) ("Green OA"). That
will provide immediate OA; and if and when universal Green OA should go
on to make subscriptions unsustainable (because users are satisfied with
just the Green OA versions) that will in turn induce journals to cut
costs (print edition, online edition, access-provision, archiving),
downsize to just providing the service of peer review, and convert to the
Gold OA cost-recovery model; meanwhile, the subscription cancellations
will have released the funds to pay these residual service costs. The
natural way to charge for the service of peer review then will be on a
"no-fault basis," with the author's institution or funder
paying for each round of refereeing, regardless of outcome (acceptance,
revision/re-refereeing, or rejection). This will minimize cost while
protecting against inflated acceptance rates and decline in quality
standards.<br><br>
</dd></dl> <br>
<dl>
<dd>At 01:50 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<dd>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
<a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">
</a><a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a> <br>
</dd><dd>On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:26 PM, David Wojick
<<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>
> wrote:<br>
</dd><dd>
<dl>
<dd>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
</dd><dd><a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/" target="_blank">
</a><a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/" target="_blank">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/</a> <br>
</dd><dd>Peter does not even discuss what is actually happening on the policy
front.<br><br>
</dd></dl></dd></blockquote></dd></dl><br>
<dd>On leads vs. lags and analysis vs argument, see:<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1027-.html" target="_blank">
Revealing Dialogue on "CHORUS" with David Wojick, OSTI
Consultant</a><br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>The exchange is preceded by the following note (by me):<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Note: <a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about/" target="_blank">David
Wojick</a> works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at
<a href="http://www.osti.gov/home/" target="_blank">OSTI</a>, 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]
<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_E._Wojick" target="_blank">
history in environmental matters</a>… <br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>The topic continued (and continues) to be discussed on the Society
for Scholarly Publishing's blog,
"<a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about/" target="_blank">The Scholarly
Kitchen</a>," where DW is a frequent contributor.<br><br>
</dd><dd>DW: "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."<br><br>
</dd><dd>And a Happy OA week to DW too...<br><br>
</dd><dd>Stevan Harnad<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>At 12:50 PM 10/23/2013, you
wrote:<blockquote type="cite">
<dd>Dear David,<br>
</dd><dd>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>
</dd><dd>Thank you,<br>
</dd><dd>Jeroen Bosman
</dd><dd>-----------------------------------------------
</dd><dd>Jeroen Bosman, subject librarian Geography&Geoscience
</dd><dd>Utrecht University Library
</dd><dd>email: <a href="mailto:j.bosman@uu.nl" target="_blank"></a><a href="mailto:j.bosman@uu.nl" target="_blank">j.bosman@uu.nl</a>
</dd><dd>twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman
</dd><dd>-----------------------------------------------------------------
</dd><dd>P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>-----Original Message-----
</dd><dd>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics
[<a href="mailto:SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" target="_blank">
</a><a href="mailto:SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" target="_blank">
</a><a href="mailto:SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" target="_blank">mailto:SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU</a>] On Behalf Of David Wojick
</dd><dd>Sent: woensdag 23 oktober 2013 18:24
</dd><dd>To:
<a href="mailto:SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" target="_blank">
</a><a href="mailto:SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU" target="_blank">SIGMETRICS@LISTSERV.UTK.EDU</a>
</dd><dd>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] OA<br>
</dd><dd>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>
</dd><dd>Happy OA week.<br>
</dd><dd>David Wojick<br>
</dd><dd>At 02:20 PM 10/22/2013, you wrote:
</dd><dd>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
</dd><dd>><a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">
</a><a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">
</a><a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a>
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>>I post this without comment.
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>
><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op" target="_blank">
</a><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op" target="_blank"></a><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>
</dd><dd>>en-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>>But I would be interested to hear listmembers
responses/reactions
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>>BW
</dd><dd>>
</dd><dd>>Quentin Burrell</dd></blockquote></dd></dl></dd></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>