[GOAL] Re: Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS)

Wed Jul 24 14:18:48 BST 2013

Building on Harnad's well-articulated arguments,

Assuming that publisher download statistics drop because traffic goes to
repositories like PMC instead of the publisher's site, the most likely
reason for the diversion in traffic is because the publishers' services do
not match the convenience and functionality of open access repositories.

If open access mandate policies were to rely on publisher initiatives like
CHORUS, this is prioritizing publisher profits over the purpose of the
research itself and those who conduct and pay for it (researchers and the
public).

To illustrate the absurdity of this inversion of priorities, consider
other areas of research that involve service industries. Let's take
manufacture of laboratory equipment as an example. As research techniques
progress, older versions of laboratory equipment become obsolete. I don't
know much about this industry but I would assume that companies either
need to develop new, competitive products, or go out of business or into
another line of business altogether. If the company has a history of
providing good service and social responsibility, it makes sense that
customers would make every effort to help with the transition, such as
working with the company to explain the new needs and ordering new lines
of equipment from the company when possible. However, government policies
requiring researchers and universities to continue purchasing the outmoded
equipment to keep the monies flowing to an old-style company doesn't make
sense in our world. A country that does this will end up falling behind,
as they would not have access to the latest equipment.

Government policies should be directed to the public interest (in the case
of research, accelerating the advancement of new knowledge, and for
teaching, supporting local universities). Service industries, whether lab
equipment manufacturers or scholarly publishers, should adjust to the
policy environment and provide the kinds of services that are in the best
interests of scholars.

Delaying access to scholarly knowledge is not in the best interests of
scholars or the public, nor is forcing readers to go to publishers'
websites rather than tools that better serve the needs of researchers.

best,

Heather Morrison

> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM, David Wojick
> <dwojick at craigellachie.us>wrote:
>
> I have already responded to these points. The publisher's self interested
>> motivation is to keep the web traffic to its journals.
>
>
> At the expense (to research and researchers) of impeding the growth of OA
> and OA mandates and ensuring that the allowable embargo length is always
> the maximum 12 months. ("For immediate-OA, please pay the Fools-Gold OA
> fee!|)
>
> Studies suggest they are losing 20% to PMC.
>
>
> And while publishers' download sites have lost the traffic, research has
> gained a great deal of functionality, as well as OA.
>
>
>> The publishers believe this, whether it is true or not, thus their
>> motivation.
>>
>
> Their motivation is in no doubt. But the issue is not what is best for
> publishers but what is best for research, researchers and the public that
> funds them.
>
>
>> The mandate is that the articles be made publicly accessible and the
>> articles are the publisher's so they are not third party contractors,
>> whatever that might mean.
>
>
> My articles are my publisher's, not mine?
>
> I think you might mean that the publishers are the holders of the
> copyright, or exclusive vending rights.
>
> Well we're talking about a mandate here -- by the party of the second
> part,
> the author's funder, requiring the party of the first part, the author, to
> make the research they've funded publicly accessible within a year of
> publication at the very latest.
>
> That's a condition of a contract the author must sign before ever doing
> the
> research, let alone signing any subsequent contract with any party of the
> third part regarding vending rights.
>
> The fundees need play no role.
>
>
> The fundees play no role? No role in what? The funder mandates bind the
> fundees, not some other party.
>
>
>> The publishers are making a ground breaking concession by agreeing to
>> the
>> Federal embargo deadlines.
>
>
> Agreeing? It seems to me they don't have much choice! Who are publishers
> conceding to? And conceding what?
>
> If this is publisher largesse rather than federal government duress I
> would
> really like to know to what we owe their newfound magnanimity...
>
>
>> This is great news for OA. I have no idea what you mean by letting them
>> sit. They will be on view in their on-line journals, which is arguably
>> where they belong.
>>
>
> I think Christina's "let[ting] them sit" may have been an ill-chosen
> descriptor, but I can still make sense of it:
>
> Ceding the provision of public access to the publisher's site and the
> publisher's timetable means that research must sit for 12 months,
> accessible only to subscribers, even though the mandate states that they
> must be made publicly accessible within 12 months *at the latest*. Fundees
> could have deposited them in repositories immediately, and made them
> publicly accessible earlier, or, if they wished to comply with a
> publishers
> embargo, made them immediately Almast-OA, via the repository's Button,
> instead of sitting inaccessibly for 12 months.
>
> And before you reply "fundees can still do that if they want to," let me
> remind you of the fundamental purpose of Green OA mandates: *It's to get
> authors to provide OA*. Without them, they don't. Not because they don't
> want to. But because without a mandate from their funders or institutions,
> they dare not: because of fear of their publishers." The mandate releases
> authors from that fear.
>
> And the CHORUS variant -- in which "the fundee has no role" -- would leave
> authors stuck in that fear, contractually unprotected by a funder mandate,
> and would render the funder policy empty and ineffectual beyond its
> absolutely minimum requirement, which is public access after 12 months
> (but
> not a moment before).
>
> And that would of course suit publishers just fine. In fact, maybe that's
> the reason for their newfound magnanimity: "Concede" on public access
> after
> a 12-month embargo, take control of hosting and providing it, and maybe
> that pesky global clamor for immediate OA will go away -- or, better,
> redirect authors toward the Fools Gold counter where they pay hybrid
> publishers for immediate OA.
>
>
>> The repository approach made sense when the publishers refused to
>> provide
>> access. That day has passed.
>>
>
> Don't bank on it. The clamor for access is growing and growing. And that's
> *
> immediate* Open Access, not publisher-Delayed Access after 12 months.
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> On Jul 23, 2013, at 8:50 AM, "Pikas, Christina K." <
> Christina.Pikas at JHUAPL.EDU> wrote:
>
>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>>
>> The vast majority of OA advocates are not anti-publisher exactly but are
> justifiably skeptical of publishers' motivations, activities, and
> proposals.
>>
>> This proposal is not a healthy one for scholarly communication, in my
> opinion. The mandate is between the funders and the fundees and the
> publishers are third party contractors. The US federal government often
> likes to push off work to contractors that is inherently governmental and
> that should be done by (less biased) government employees.
>>
>> The publishers' proposal may be an easier route to go and might be
> attractive with the lobbying and the advocates like you pushing it, but in
> the long run the publishers serve their own bottom lines (as they should
> in
> a market economy) and not necessarily the best interests of scholarly
> communication. The products of federally funded research are too important
> to let sit and should be in repositories run by the funders and/or
> fundees.
>>
>> This is all in my opinion and is not the position of my employer (or
> anyone else, for that matter).
>>
>> Christina Pikas
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:
> SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:07 AM
>> To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu
>> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Research Community Interests and the
>> Publishing
> Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS)
>>
>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>>
>> What Federal system design arguments have I not responded to? It is not
> an ad hominem to point out that the Federal policy is not anti-publisher,
> as many OA advocates are. It is an important fact about the policy. I have
> to be repetitive because Harnad is presenting the same non-design
> arguments
> over and over. Arguments such as that publishers cannot be trusted, access
> should be immediate via institutional repositories, delayed access is not
> open access, etc. My response does not vary.
>>
>> David Wojick
>>
>> On Jul 23, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Cristóbal Palmer <cmp at CMPALMER.ORG> wrote:
>>
>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 7:05 AM, David Wojick wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Your personal dislike of publishers is not a system design argument,
> nor is it Federal policy.
>>>
>>> Your personal inability to stay focused on the arguments presented and
> reliance instead on ad hominem plus repetition isn't a system design
> argument either.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --
>>> Cristóbal Palmer
>>>
>>> cmpalmer.org
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>

-- 
Dr. Heather Morrison
Assistant Professor
École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies
University of Ottawa
http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/
Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca