<div dir="ltr">On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:30 AM, David Wojick <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dwojick@craigellachie.us" target="_blank">dwojick@craigellachie.us</a>></span> wrote:<div><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"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><i>Stevan, the well established fact that you do not like the US Public Access program and CHORUS is somewhat beside the point.</i></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This is not about my personal likes or dislikes, nor about yours, David. It is about finding the optimal strategy for providing Open Access (OA) to research as quickly and as widely as possible.</div>
<div><br></div><div>All open access advocates (including myself) agree that the US Public Access policies are very timely and welcome.</div><div><br></div><div>What is not welcome is any attempt to slow down or constrain the growth of open access by trying to keep both its provision and its timetable in the hands of publishers, as CHORUS attempts to do, and as you are yourself are promoting under the guise of providing "expert" information to the policy-making community.</div>
<div><br></div><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"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><i>I am tracking what is actually happening in the US, not what you wish would happen. There are about 20 federal agencies preparing to implement Public Access, representing perhaps $100 billion/year in funding (we really do no know how much leads to journal articles). To my knowledge none of them is going to do it your way.</i></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I am not sure why you persist in calling the policy of the <a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/987/" target="_blank">European Commission Horizon2020 OA Policy</a>, the <a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/834/" target="_blank">HEFCE/RCUK OA Policy</a>, the <a href="http://roarmap.eprints.org/850/" target="_blank">Belgian FRS/FNRS OA Policy</a>, etc. "<i>what [I, SH] wish would happen</i>." That policy model is the one recommended by the SPARC and BOAI. I am only one of its countless well-wishers.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Here are the relevant passages from the <a href="http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai-10-recommendations" target="_blank"><b>BOAI Recommendations</b></a></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><b>1. On policy</b></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div>
</div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">1.1. <b>Every institution of higher education </b>should have a policy assuring that peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly articles by faculty members are deposited in the institution’s designated repository. (See recommendation 3.1 on institutional repositories.)</div>
</div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>•<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.
</div>
</div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">...</div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>•<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>University policies should encourage but not require publication in OA journals, and should help faculty understand the difference between depositing in an OA repository and publishing in an OA journal.
</div>
</div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">…
</div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>•<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we recommend either of two courses. The policy may require dark or non-OA deposit in the institutional repository until permission for OA can be obtained. Or the policy may grant the institution a nonexclusive right to make future faculty research articles OA through the institutional repository (with or without the option for faculty to waive this grant of rights for any given publication).</div>
</div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">…</div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">1.3. <b>Every research funding agency</b>, public or private, should have a policy assuring that peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly articles reporting funded research are deposited in a suitable repository and made OA as soon as practicable.</div>
</div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>•<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.
</div>
</div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">…</div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>•<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>If funder policies allow embargoes before new work becomes OA, the embargoes should not exceed six months. Policies should allow no embargoes at all for uncopyrightable work.
</div>
</div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">…</div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">1.4. <b>All university and funder OA policies should require deposit in a suitable OA repository between the date of acceptance and the date of publication.</b> The metadata should be deposited as soon as it is available and should be OA from the moment of deposit. The full-text should be made OA as soon as the repository has permission to make it OA.</div>
</div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">1.7. Publishers who do not provide OA should at least permit it through their formal publishing agreements.</div>
</div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>•<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>Publishers should refrain from lobbying against governments acting in the public interest, and refrain from lobbying against research institutions acting in the interests of researchers and research. Publishers should disavow lobbying campaigns carried out in their name by their professional or trade associations against the public interest and the interests of researchers and research.
</div>
</div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>•<span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>The minority of subscription-based publishers who do not yet allow author-initiated green OA, without payment or embargo, should adopt the majority position.
</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span></div><div><br></div><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">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><i>There are however some big bibliometric issues here. Linking articles to funding should provide for new forms of bibliometric assessment of agency and research program performance. At this point we do not even know which research funding programs are leading to journal articles, much less their impact. It is a whole new world to explore.</i><br>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, OA will help greatly both in record-keeping and in research assessment. But those are bonuses. The purpose of Open Access is Open Access, not bibliometrics. Bibliometric speculations should certainly not be allowed to retard or get in the way of OA, OA Policy, or OA Policy implementation.</div>
<div> </div><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"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div></div><div><i>But getting accurate article funding data is turning out to be difficult, in part due to the incredible complexity of the Federal funding system. In the CHORUS pilot they found a high incidence of cases where the FundRef funder data did not match the article acknowledgement funder statements. Solving this funder data problem is now a major effort, one I am tracking closely.<br>
</i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The solution is there and quite straightforward: </div><div><br></div><div>All authors have institutions -- either a university or a research institution. Those institutions have a huge stake in ensuring that their researchers comply with their funder requirements (and they already review all grant applications). Institutions are hence the ones in the position to monitor their own researchers' journal article output, ensure that the funder (if any) is specified in the repository metadata for each published article, and, most important of all, ensure that the deposit is done within the required time-frame (see BOAI recommendation above). </div>
<div><br></div><div>Repository deposits are time-stamped. Researchers can even be asked to deposit the journal's acceptance letter (in closed access) alongside the final refereed draft, for record-keeping and compliance monitoring purposes. The institution can thereby systematically monitor and ensure timely compliance with funder (and institutional) deposit mandates. (The repository software and the Copy Request Button can then handle any allowable publisher embargo periods in a simple, straightforward way --via the Button till the embargo elapses, and then the deposit automatically becomes OA.)</div>
<div><br></div><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"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div></div><div><i>In fact to me the bibliometric issues are far more interesting than the OA issues.</i></div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>To you. But not to the access-denied users that the OA movement is all about, and for...</div><div> </div><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">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><i>The bibliometric community should be more heavily involved in the US Public Access program. The agency offices that are designing the various agency programs know very little about bibliometrics, because the have never dealt with journal articles before. They mostly process final research reports. Thus they are not thinking about how the funder data will be used for performance evaluation; rather their focus is on providing access, getting the articles in and out the door, as it were.<br>
</i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i>I think performance evaluation is going to be a very big deal, because of the huge sums involved in Federal R&D.</i><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>To repeat: Yes, OA will help greatly both in record-keeping and in research assessment. But those are bonuses. The purpose of Open Access is Open Access, not bibliometrics. Bibliometric speculations should certainly not be allowed to retard or get in the way of OA, OA Policy, or OA Policy implementation.</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>Stevan Harnad</b></div></div></div></div></div>