[GOAL] US Federal Agencies' Open Access Mandate Implementations

[Stevan Harnad]

On Oct 25, 2014, at 5:42 PM, David Wojick <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US> wrote:

> Stevan, I do not expect the various agencies to agree on a process. If they do it will be the DOE
> approach, because the software is there. It might be like the Science.gov portal, which OSTI operates.
> Ideally they will get all their articles via CHORUS and that is the hope.

David, CHORUS, with its reliance on publishers is not an ideal hope, it is a worst-case nightmare!

> The primary consideration is cost because there is no new funding for the Public Access program.

That’s just fine. No money is needed from the Feds, just the adoption of the right OA mandate. And
that happens to be the one that entails no cost to the Feds: Institutional Repository deposit,
monitored and ensured by the institutions, as part of the fulfillment conditions for the funding.

> PMC is rich while the other agencies have very little money for this.

PMC is not a research funder! PMC does not mandate anything. NIH does. And NIH too,
rich or not, should mandate institutional deposit (and then exporting to PMC). All cost-free
software functions.

> However, there was a rumor about 5 months ago that NSF would go with an "any repository”
> approach, but still with the 12 month embargo. IPA covered it.

Fine, but it won’t work unless NSF specifies institutional repository deposit and adds an
immediate-deposit clause, to ensure compliance monitoring and verification by institutions.
The 12-month embargo on OA will be mooted by the institutions’ automated copy-request
Button — as long as authors must deposit immediately and not just after the embargo!

> Now the rumor is that NSF will go the DOE route, but no one really knows what the agencies
> will do because the decisions simply have not been made. Hence my newsletter.

Fine, good to hear they are still open to different options. Let’s hope some of us can draw
their attention to the objective evidence.

> The feds have little, if any,interest in what the Brits are doing. 

I hope and believe you are wrong about that. The interest should not be in the UK per
se but in empirical evidence on which to base an evidence-based policy.

> Neither APC nor immediate deposit are on the table. 

Good to remove APCs from the table, because the evidence there is negative.

But I hope other factors — like immediate deposit and institutional deposit — remain
on the table, because the evidence is in their favor.

> But most of the agencies probably have to go through rulemaking to implement their programs 
> so you can comment then, as can everyone. 

I will of course comment again, as I have always done in the past. The question is whether I will be
unheeded again, as in the past...

Harnad, S. (1999) Critiques of H. Varmus E-biomed  Proposal  
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/22404/ 
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0801.htm 
http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0725.htm

(2004) Recommendations to UK Science/Technology Committee Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm

 (2011) What Is To Be Done About Public Access 
to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications Resulting From Federally 
Funded Research? (Response to US OSTP RFI). 
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/273080/

(2012) Public Access to Federally Funded Research 
(Harnad Response to US OSTP RFI)  Open Access Archivangelism 865/866 
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-.html

(2013) Follow-Up Comments for BIS Select Committee 
on Open Access. UK Parliament Publications and Records, Spring
Issue http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/352011/ 

(2013) Comments on HEFCE/REF Open Access Mandate Proposal.  
Open access and submissions to the REF post-2014 
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/349893/ 

(2013) Evidence to House of Lords Science and Technology
Select Committee on Open Access. House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee on Open Access, Winter Issue,
119-123. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/348479/ 

(2013) Evidence to BIS Select Committee Inquiry on Open Access. Written
Evidence to BIS Select Committee Inquiry on Open Access, Winter
Issue http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/348483/ 

(2013) Recommandation au ministre québécois de l'enseignement supérieur. 
http://j.mp/QUoaRecs

(2013) Harnad Comments on Canada’s NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Draft Tri-Agency Open Access Policy. 
Canadian Tri-Agency Call for Comments, Autumn Issue http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/358972/

Stevan Harnad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20141025/f67e06ca/attachment-0001.html