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

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Thank you, Stevan. Spot on!

Jean-Claude Guédon

Le jeudi 06 juin 2013 à 10:59 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :

> The OSTP should on no account be taken in by the Trojan Horse that is
> being offered by the research publishing industry's "CHORUS." 
> 
> CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for
> self-serving anti-Open Access (OA) lobbying by the publishing
> industry. Previous incarnations have been the "PRISM coalition" and
> the "Research Works Act."
> 
>         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.
>         
>         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. Nature 5
> January 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> Linked version of this posting: 
> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal


-- 

Jean-Claude Guédon
Professeur titulaire
Littérature comparée
Université de Montréal

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20130606/7117a0c2/attachment-0001.html