<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 8:57 AM, David Wojick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<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"><b>DW: </b>The embargo periods will be set by the Feds. <br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The embargo periods are set by the <i>publishers</i>. The Feds only set what is the longest embargo period they will allow.</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">
<b>DW: </b>It is better to send users to the publisher's website than to a federal repository of accepted manuscripts, also cheaper.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's neither better nor cheaper.</div><div><br></div>
<div>But it's best to send users where they already go: the indexes, harvesters and search engines. Those in turn are best to harvest from <i>the researchers' own institutional repositories</i>, which happen to be the providers of all the research output, and are in the best position to monitor and ensure that all OA mandates -- institutional mandates and funder mandates -- are complied with for their own output. </div>
</div><div><br></div><div>And distributed institutional repositories are much cheaper than central ones (which would in turm be much cheaper if they simply harvested the metadata from the institutional repositories).</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"><b>DW: </b>Generally speaking one does not lobby Executive branch agencies.</blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>No; but lobbyists can <i>consult</i> for them... </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">
<b>DW: </b>The publishers have had a few polite meetings with OSTP and the agency group but that is about it. We are all just waiting to see what the Feds are going to do. Also, scholarly publishing is far too small to have "lobbying power." It is a tiny industry, almost beneath notice.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think past and ongoing anti-OA lobbying attempts by the "tiny" publishing industry have been quite large-scale, and are a matter of public record: <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&gws_rd=ssl#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=prism+blogurl:http:%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbm=blg">PRISM</a>, <a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/263-Publisher-anti-OA-Lobby-Triumphs-in-European-Commission.html">EU</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act">RWA</a>, <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&gws_rd=ssl#c2coff=1&hl=en&lr=&q=Finch+blogurl%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&safe=active&tbas=0&tbm=blg">Finch</a>, etc. etc.</div>
<div><br></div><div> <b>Stevan Harnad</b></div></div></div></div>