[GOAL] "CHORUS": Yet Another Trojan Horse from the Publishing Industry

[Stevan Harnad]

The OSTP<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=ostp+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=vZCwUdSoINTB4APxwYDICw&ved=0CBsQpwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47534661,d.dmg&fp=41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=1260&bih=674>
should
on no account be taken in by the Trojan Horse that is being offered by the
research publishing industry's
"CHORUS<http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/scientific-publishers-offer-solu.html>
."

CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open
Access (OA) lobbying<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>
by
the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the "PRISM
coalition<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>"
and the "Research Works
Act<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>
."

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.

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.

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 ROARMAP<http://roarmap.eprints.org/>
.

4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to
research progress by imposing embargoes of 6-12 months or more on research
access that can and should be immediate in the online era.

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.

6. Moreover, the publisher lobby is attempting to do this under the pretext
of saving "precious research funds" for research!

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.

8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for
research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers.

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.

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.

Let the OSTP not be taken in this time either.

Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open
access<http://cwis.usc.edu/hsc/nml/assets/AAHSL/Nature_PR%20Pit%20Bull%2007-0124.pdf>.
Nature 5 January 2007.

Linked version of this posting:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130606/1fbbca62/attachment.html