<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div><br></div><div><div><div>On May 28, 2014, at 11:00 AM, David Wojick <<a href="mailto:dwojick@CRAIGELLACHIE.US">dwojick@CRAIGELLACHIE.US</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">Actually it is just $10 per issue, Stevan (500 divided by 50), so pretty cheap.</blockquote><div><br></div>That’s not what the site says:<br><div><br></div><div><a href="http://insidepublicaccess.com/issues.html#list of issues">http://insidepublicaccess.com/issues.html#list%20of%20issues</a>:</div><div><br></div><b style="font-family: Times; font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Purchase single issue <a href="http://insidepublicaccess.com/issues.html#list of issues">from list above</a> -- $20.00 </b></div><div><b style="font-family: Times; font-size: medium; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><BR><MailScannerForm29314 form action="https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr" method="post" target="_top"><input type="reset" src="https://www.paypalobjects.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_buynowCC_LG.gif" border="0" name="submit" alt="PayPal - The safer, easier way to pay online!"> <img alt="" border="0" width="1" height="1" apple-inline="yes" id="50C3EF6B-A418-4BCB-8BA5-C12BFC28931C" apple-width="yes" apple-height="yes" src="cid:5441EE10-FCF8-43AC-8330-6C3E2BA5950A@home"></MailScannerForm29314></b></div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">And while I am indeed just one individual, I pioneered the design of Federal regulatory</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">programs like the US Public Access program.</blockquote><div><br></div>That the US has a Public Access program at all is a very good thing (and due mostly to the </div><div>pioneering efforts of Heather Joseph, Peter Suber and Harold Varmus).</div><div><br></div><div>But the design of tje US Public Access program so far is terrible, on every substantive point:</div><div><br></div><div>Means of deposit</div><div>Locus of deposit</div><div>Timing of Deposit</div><div>Embargo Policy</div><div>Implementation</div><div>Monitoring</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">See <a href="http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2014/03/engineer-tackles-regulatory-confusion.html" eudora="autourl">http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2014/03/engineer-tackles-regulatory-confusion.html</a> .</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">I even have a diagnostic system of 126 kinds of confusion in such programs, which is freely</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">available at <a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/02/05/a-taxonomy-of-confusions/" eudora="autourl">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/02/05/a-taxonomy-of-confusions/</a> .</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">For that matter I have 30 Scholarly Kitchen articles, most of which are about the US Public</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Access program, freely available at <a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/" eudora="autourl">http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/</a>,</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">if people want to sample my expertise. But the research costs money so I have to use a</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">subscription model. As the saying goes, somebody has to pay for the work.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>There is a good deal of open access research on Open Access and Open Access policies, </div><div>by different researchers (Bjork/Laakso, Bollen, Gargouri, Giles, Houghton, Solomon, Swan, </div><div>Thelwall), all of them doing it for research purposes and for open access, and not charging </div><div>a penny. Much of it appears in peer-reviewed journals (rather than the <i>Scholarly Kitchen</i>, </div><div>and much of the research is based on empirical studies rather than “expert opinion.”</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite">Public Access is going to be a massive and complex program.</blockquote><div><br></div>It need not be. All funders and institutions need to do is to both adopt a convergent immediate-deposit</div><div>mandate requiring immediate deposit of the refereed final draft in the researcher’s own institutional </div><div>repository, immediately upon acceptance for publication (with the repository’s Request-Copy Button </div><div>implemented for embargoed deposits) as a precondition for research funding, renewal, research </div><div>assessment, and institutional performance review.</div><div><br></div><div>Institutions will then monitor and ensure timely compliance, the Button will tide over research</div><div>user needs during any allowable OA embargo period, and deposit metadata and links can be </div><div>harvested by any central repository.</div><div><br></div><div>That is neither massive nor complex: it’s local and tractable — and it’s already being successfully </div><div>implemented in Europe, for example, in the UK and Belgium.</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1103-HEFCEREF-Adopts-Optimal-Complement-to-RCUK-OA-Mandate.html"><b>HEFCE/REF Adopts Optimal Complement to RCUK OA Mandate</b></a></div></div></blockquote><div><br><blockquote type="cite">One can get the flavor of the emerging complexity from the new CHORUS Implementation Guide.</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">See <a href="http://chorusaccess.org/chorus-publisher-implementation-guide/" eudora="autourl">http://chorusaccess.org/chorus-publisher-implementation-guide/</a>. In fact I will analyze this Guide</blockquote><blockquote type="cite">for confusions in this week's issue of Inside Public Access.<br></blockquote><div><br></div>Chorus is all by and for publishers. <i>It is best ignored completely by researchers, their institutions and </i></div><div><i>their funders. </i>OA and OA policy are not about publishers. It is, blessedly, out of publisher hands, even </div><div>if some publisher consultants would like to keep them there…</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-CHORUS-Yet-Another-Trojan-Horse-from-the-Publishing-Industry.html"><b>"CHORUS": Yet Another Trojan Horse from the Publishing Industry</b></a></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Verdana; min-height: 15px;"><br></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1024-Potential-CHORUS-catastrophe-for-OA-How-to-fend-it-off.html"><b>Potential CHORUS catastrophe for OA: How to fend it off</b></a></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Verdana; min-height: 15px;"><br></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Verdana;"><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1027-Revealing-Dialogue-on-CHORUS-with-David-Wojick,-OSTI-Consultant.html"><b>Revealing Dialogue on "CHORUS" with David Wojick, OSTI Consultant</b></a></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Verdana; min-height: 15px;"><br></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Verdana;"><b><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1018-First-Things-First.html">First Things First</a></b></div></div></blockquote><div><div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Verdana; min-height: 15px;"><b><br></b></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0px; font-family: Verdana; min-height: 15px;"><br><b></b></div></div><div>Stevan Harnad</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">David Wojick, Ph.D.<br>Inside Public Access<br><a href="http://insidepublicaccess.com/">http://insidepublicaccess.com/</a><br><br>At 11:20 AM 5/28/2014, you wrote:<blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">On May 28, 2014, at 6:33 AM, David Wojick <<a href="mailto:dwojick@CRAIGELLACHIE.US">dwojick@CRAIGELLACHIE.US</a> > wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">I have been getting serious about open access. Specifically I have started a weekly<br>subscription newsletter called "Inside Public Access" (see <a href="http://insidepublicaccess.com/">http://insidepublicaccess.com/</a>).<br>We are tracking the emerging US Public Access program, which should be a major influence<br>on worldwide open access policies. In any case it is a massive and complex program in<br>it's own right. Our rates are quite reasonable as these things go. We just published our eighth<br>weekly issue and our backlist is included with new subscriptions. Individual issues are also available.<br><br>Interesting times,<br>David Wojick, Ph.D.<br>Inside Public Access<br><a href="http://insidepublicaccess.com/">http://insidepublicaccess.com/</a></blockquote><br>Wow, is that ever the opposite of what I said, and meant, which was about getting serious, <br>not getting rich! <br><br>$500 per year or $20 per issue to read what <a href="http://insidepublicaccess.com/issues.html">one</a> <a href="http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/">individual</a> has to say about open access...<br><br>Let’s hope that the emerging US Public Access program will be “tracked” — and its policy shaped — by <br>knowledgeable representatives of the research community, motivated to facilitate and accelerate OA growth, <br>rather than by “<a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?serendipity%5Baction%5D=search&serendipity%5BsearchTerm%5D=wojick&serendipity%5BsearchButton%5D=%3E"> policy consultants</a>” motivated to constrain and retard it.<br><br>Caveat Emptor<br><br><blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite="">On May 28, 2014, at 1:40 AM, Stevan Harnad <<a href="mailto:amsciforum@GMAIL.COM">amsciforum@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><b><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1113-.html">Video interview of Stevan Harnad</a></b> by Maciej Chojnowski (CeON) prior to Invited<br>Keynote on "How to Formulate Effective Policies to Open Access to Research<br>Worldwide". Conference on <a href="https://conference2014.ceon.pl/conference/program/"><i>Opening Science to Meet Future Challenges</i></a>. Centre<br>for Open Science, part of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and<br>Computational Modelling at the University of Warsaw, 11 March 2014</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><div><blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><blockquote type="cite" class="cite" cite=""><br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>