On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 12:13 PM, David Wojick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>></span> wrote:<div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue, so I
see no Trojan horse. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>1. The "This" is US federal funding agency Open Access mandates.</div><div><br></div><div>2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound to comply with the conditions of the funder mandate.</div>
<div><br></div><div>3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all all on the Web</div><div><br></div><div>4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hands of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web.</div>
<div><br></div><div>5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it.</div><div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>It is about the design of the Federal program, where
I see no reason for redundant Federal archiving.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The web is full of "redundant archiving": the same document may be stored and hosted on multiple sites. That's good for back-up and reliability and preservation, and part of the way the Web works. And it costs next to nothing -- and certainly not to publishers. (If publishers wish to save federal research money, let them charge less for journal subscriptions; don't fret about "redundant archiving.")</div>
<div><br></div><div>PubMed Central (PMC) is a very valuable and widely used central search tool. Its usefulness is based on both its scope of coverage (thanks to mandates) and on its metadata quality. It borders on absurdity for publishers to criticize this highly useful and widely used resource as "redundant." It provides access where publishers do not.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Nor does PMC's usefulness reside in the fact that it hosts the full-texts of the papers it indexes. It's the metadata and search capacity that makes PMC so useful. It would be equally useful if the URL for each full-text to which PMC pointed were in each fundee's own institutional repository, and PMC hosted only the metadata and search tools. (Indeed, it would increase PMC's coverage and make it even more economical; many of us are hoping PMC and other central repositories like Arxiv will evolve in that direction.)</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> There is nothing in the
CHORUS approach to the Federal program design that precludes author self
archiving in institutional repositories as a separate activity. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>1. "This" is about US federal funding agency Open Access mandates.</div><div><br></div><div>2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who is bound to comply the with conditions of the funder mandate. </div>
<div><br></div><div>3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free for all all on the Web. <i><u>If authors self-archived of their own accord, "as a separate activity," there would have been no need for federal Open Access mandates.</u></i></div>
<div><br></div><div>4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hand of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web.</div>
<div><br></div><div>5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. </div><div><br>
</div><div>The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free access<i> <u>within a year at the latest</u></i>. Publishers have every incentive to make (and keep) this the latest, by taking self-archiving out of authors' hands and doing it instead of them, as late as possible.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Moreover, funder OA mandates are increasingly being complemented by institutional OA mandates, which cover both funded and unfunded research. This is also why institutions have institutional repositories (archives), in which their researchers can deposit, and from which central repositories can harvest. This is also the way to tide over research needs during OA embargoes, with the help of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-OA Button.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And again, no need here for advice from publishers, with their conflicts of interest, on how institutions can save money on their "redundant archives" by letting publishers provide the OA in place of their researchers (safely out of the reach of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-OA Button).</div>
</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>The journals are part of the research community and they have always been
the principal archive.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Journals consist of authors, referees, editors and publishers. Publishers are not part of the research community (not even university or learned-society publishers); they earn their revenues from it.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Until the online era, the "principal archive" has been the university library. In the online era it's the web. The publisher's sector of the web is proprietary and toll-based. The research community's sector is Open Access.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And that's another reason CHORUS is a Trojan Horse.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> With CHORUS they will be again. </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>What on earth does this mean? That articles in the publishers' proprietary sector will be opened up after a year?</div><div><br></div><div>That sounds like an excellent way to ensure that they won't ever be opened up any earlier, and that mandates will be powerless to make them open up any earlier.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>After all the
entire process is based on the article being published in the journal. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, but what is at issue now is not publishing but <i>access</i>: when, where and how?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>It
is true that this is all future tense including the Federal program, but
the design principles are here and now.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And what is at issue here is the need to alert the Federal program that it should on no account be taken in by CHORUS's offer to "let us do the self-archiving for you."</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>I repeat, immediate access is not a design alternative. The OSTP guidance
is clear about that. So most of your points are simply irrelevant to the
present situation.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-free access<i> within a year at the latest</i>. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Immediate OA (as well as immediate-deposit plus immediate Almost-OA via the Button) is definitely an alternative -- as well as a design alternative.</div><div><br></div><div>But not if OSTP heeds the siren call of CHORUS.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Adminstrative info for
SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
<a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a>
<font face="times new roman">On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 AM, David
Wojick
<<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more
important as an OA tipping point.<br><br>
</dd></dl><font face="times new roman"><br>
We are clearly not understanding one another:<br><br>
Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if they
still need a tweak (as noted).<br><br>
Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my
point.)<br><br>
But no, Delayed Access is not OA, let alone Green OA, although
that is how publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially
Green OA.<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with
CHORUS.</dd></dl></font><br><br>
<font face="times new roman"><br>
Yes, that's the point: CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving out
of the hands and off the sites of the research community, to put it
in the hands and on the site of publishers. That is abundantly
clear.<br><br>
And my point was about how bad that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for
the research community and the future of OA.<br><br>
But the verb should be CHORUS "would be," not CHORUS
"is" -- because, thankfully, it is not yet true that this
4th publishers' Trojan Horse has been allowed in at all. <br><br>
(The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the
"Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the
Finch Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates
and the research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th
publisher Trojan Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the
research community are working hard to keep it out!)<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal
submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no
burden on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly
available from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo
period. This is extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository
model.</dd></dl></font><br><br>
<font face="times new roman"><br>
Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of the
future of OA.<br><br>
Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a fait accompli, and the
hope (of OA advocates </font>and the concerned research community) is
that it never will be.<br>
<font face="times new roman"><br>
The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed Central,
PMC) needs is an upgrade </font>to immediate institutional deposit,
followed by automatic harvesting and import (after the allowable embargo
has elapsed) by PMC or any other institution-external subject based <br>
<font face="times new roman">harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate model
would be optimal (for the time being).<br><br>
David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first posting
has since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will have to
take any further failures to understand it as willful, and SIGMETRICS
readers will be relieved to hear that I will make no further attempt to
correct it.<br><br>
Stevan Harnad<br>
</font><br>
<dl>
<dd>On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad
<<a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">amsciforum@GMAIL.COM</a>>
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<dd>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
<a href="http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target="_blank">
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a>
<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank"> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46
PM, David Wojick
<</a><a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">
dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>> wrote:<br>
</dd><dd> <br>
<dl>
<dd>NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal
agencies are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter
period for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the
publishers or CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the
agencies will use the publisher's websites and articles instead of a
redundant repository like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US
Governments requirements, while trying to keep their users, so there is
no Trojan horse here, just common sense. Immediate access is not an
option in this Federal OA program. The OA community should be happy to
get green OA.<br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another
matter, not
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-Tilting-at-the-Tipping-Point.html" target="_blank">
the one I was discussing</a>. (But of course the pressure for the
embargoes comes from the publishers, not from the funding
agencies.)<br><br>
</dd><dd>2. The
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-CHORUS-Yet-Another-Trojan-Horse-from-the-Publishing-Industry.html" target="_blank">
Trojan Horse</a> would be funding agencies foolishly accepting
publishers' "CHORUS" invitation to outsource author
self-archiving, -- and hence compliance with the funder mandate -- to
publishers, instead of having fundees do it themselves, in their own
institutional repositories.<br><br>
</dd><dd>3. To repeat: Delayed Access is not Open Access -- any more
than Paid Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent
online access, toll-free, for all.<br><br>
</dd><dd>4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research
access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with
obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible.
All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer
review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for
themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a
fraction of what institutions are paying publishers now for
subscriptions.<br><br>
</dd><dd>5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA.
But OA means immediate access, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA
nor Gold OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after
a publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free
access on their website after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but
it's not really OA at all if it's not immediate. And that's why it's so
important to upgrade all funder mandates to make them immediate-deposit
mandates, even if they are not immediate-OA mandates.)<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why
did you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of
up to 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a
paradigm of open access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently
making your own language.<br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
</dd><dd>Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA
used, paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually
(mildly) criticizing the study in question for failing to distinguish
Open Access from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had
reached the "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not --
specifically because of publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary,
still attached below: I don't think there is any ambiguity at all about
what I said and meant.]<br><br>
</dd><dd>But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes
<a href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/" target="_blank">for the time being</a> --
as long as deposit is mandated to be done
<a href="http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html" target="_blank">
immediately</a> upon acceptance for publication, by the author, in the
author's institutional repository, and not a year later, by the
publisher, on the publisher's own website. Access to the author's deposit
can be set as OA during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile
authors can provide Almost-OA via their repository's facilitated
<a href="https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy" target="_blank">Eprint
Request Button</a>.<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html" target="_blank">
The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and
Model</a><br><br>
</dd><dd>
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-guid.html" target="_blank">
Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP
RFI)</a><br>
</dd><dd> <br>
</dd><dd><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/991-.html" target="_blank">
Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate</a><br><br>
</dd></dl></dd></blockquote></dd></dl>
<dd> <br>
<dl>
<dd><a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM,
Stevan Harnad
<</a><a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM" target="_blank">amsciforum@GMAIL.COM</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<dd><font face="times new roman">
<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56
PM, David Wojick
<</a><a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">
dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>> wrote:<br>
</font></dd><dd><font face="times new roman"> <br>
<dl>
<dd>The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles
based even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of
12 months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS
that meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website.
Many of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will
significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is
implemented over the next few years.<br>
</dd></dl></font></dd><br><br>
<dd>[David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for
Innovation at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information,
in the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in
logic and philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in
civil engineering.] <br><br>
</dd></blockquote></dd></dl></dd></blockquote><font face="times new roman"><br>
<dd>Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be
taken in by this publisher Trojan Horse called
"<a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/scientific-publishers-offer-solu.html" target="_blank">
CHORUS</a>." It is tripping point, not a tipping
point.<br><br>
</dd><dd>If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means
free online access immediately upon publication, not access after a
one-year embargo.<br><br>
</dd><dd>CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving
<a href="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" target="_blank">
anti-Open Access (OA) lobbying</a> by the publishing industry. Previous
incarnations have been the
"<a href="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" target="_blank">
PRISM coalition</a>" and the
"<a href="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" target="_blank">
Research Works Act</a>."<br>
<dl>
<dd>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.<br><br>
</dd><dd>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, not vice versa!<br><br>
</dd><dd>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
<a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/" target="_blank">ROARMAP</a>.<br><br>
</dd><dd>4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of
OA to research progress by imposing
<a href="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=embargo+OR+embargoes+OR+embargoed+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=active&hl=en&tbm=blg&tbas=0&source=lnt&sa=X&ei=xemwUeqMEOSwyQGjn4DgBg&ved=0CBsQpwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.47534661,d.aWc&fp=41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=1260&bih=672" target="_blank">
embargoes</a> of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and
should be
<a href="http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/delayed/laakso_bj_rk_delay_preprint.pdf" target="_blank">
immediate</a> in the online era.<br>
<br>
</dd><dd>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.<br><br>
</dd><dd>6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which
already consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is
attempting to do this under the pretext of saving "precious research
funds" for research!<br><br>
</dd><dd>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.<br><br>
</dd><dd>8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for
research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers.<br><br>
</dd><dd>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.<br><br>
</dd><dd>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.<br>
</dd></dl></dd></font><br>
<dd><font face="times new roman">Let the the US Government not be taken
in this time either.<br><br>
</font></dd><dd><font face="times new roman">[And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent
the interests of the research community rather than those of the
publishing industry?]<br><br>
</font></dd><dd><font face="times new roman">Eisen, M. (2013)
</font></dd><a href="http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1382" target="_blank">A CHORUS of
boos: publishers offer their “solution” to public access</a><br><br>
<dd>Giles, J. (2007)
<a href="http://cwis.usc.edu/hsc/nml/assets/AAHSL/Nature_PR%20Pit%20Bull%2007-0124.pdf" target="_blank">
PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access</a>. Nature 5 January 2007.<br><br>
</dd><dd>Harnad, S. (2012)
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.htm" target="_blank">
Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag
The Public Research Dog, Yet Again</a>. Open Access Archivangelism
287 January 7. 2012<br>
<font face="times new roman"><br>
<dl>
<dd>At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote:</dd></dl></font><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<dd><font face="times new roman">Summary: The findings of Eric
Archambault’s (2013) pilot study
“<a href="http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/ISSI-ARchambeault.pdf" target="_blank">
The Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age</a>” on the percentage of
OA that is currently available are very timely, welcome and promising.
The study finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that
are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, when in
that 5-year interval the articles were made OA. Hence the study
cannot indicate what percentage of articles being published in 2013 is
being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles
published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is
through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA,
immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline.<br><br>
</font></dd><dd><font face="times new roman">See:
<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html" target="_blank">
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html</a>
</font></dd></blockquote></dd><br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>