<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 1:19 PM, David Wojick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> <br><div>
The Scholarly Kitchen has an interesting article on how to define
"federal funding" under the emerging US OA mandate. See
<a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/09/what-does-federally-funded-actually-mean/" target="_blank">
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/09/what-does-federally-funded-actually-mean/</a>
<br><br>
The scientometric issue is how valid the impact analysis of government
agencies can be when "government funding" is poorly defined,
such that research with very little actual government funding is
included? Conversely, what role might the scientometric community play in
resolving this issue? I have raised this issue in the Kitchen article
comments, if anyone wants to join the discussion.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Let me see if I get this: </div><div><br></div><div>Because it is not clear what proportion of the research that a funded researcher publishes can be directly attributed to any particular funding source, it would be better if funders did not mandate that it must be made Open Access (for "scientometric" reasons!)?</div>
<div><br></div><div>I don't think so.</div></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><p style="border:0px;font-family:georgia,serif;margin:0px 0px 0.9em;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:1.6em;color:rgb(51,51,51)">
<span style="line-height:1.6em">In any case, don’t worry: Whatever is not covered by federal funder mandates will be covered by institutional mandates like Harvard’s, MIT’s etc. All refereed research output, both funded and unfunded, in all fields, is the obvious, natural target for OA. No problem for researchers to figure that out: they won’t have to think twice. </span></p>
<p style="border:0px;font-family:georgia,serif;margin:0px 0px 0.9em;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:1.6em;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><span style="line-height:1.6em">And publishers — for all their moaning and groaning, and dire warnings of doom and gloom — will, of course, figure out a way to adapt. All the FUD they keep trying to raise at each juncture is so unmistakably just smoke and delay tactics: futile efforts to stave off the obvious, optimal and inevitable outcome for research, researchers, the vast R&D industry, and the tax-paying public in the online era: 100% Open Access to all peer-reviewed research immediately upon acceptance for publication.</span><br>
</p><p style="border:0px;font-family:georgia,serif;margin:0px 0px 0.9em;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:1.6em;color:rgb(51,51,51)">But why is a policy consultant for OSTI raising this "scientometric" smokescreen which sounds, for all the world, as if it were coming from a lobbyist for the publishing industry?</p>
<p style="border:0px;font-family:georgia,serif;margin:0px 0px 0.9em;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:1.6em;color:rgb(51,51,51)"><b>Stevan Harnad</b></p><p style="border:0px;font-family:georgia,serif;margin:0px 0px 0.9em;padding:0px;vertical-align:baseline;line-height:1.6em;color:rgb(51,51,51)">
<br></p></div></div>