<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><font face="Arial">On Oct 25, 2014, at 5:42 PM, David Wojick <<a href="mailto:dwojick@CRAIGELLACHIE.US">dwojick@CRAIGELLACHIE.US</a>> wrote:</font></div><font face="Arial"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></font><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Arial">Stevan, I do not expect the various agencies to agree on a process. If they do it will be the DOE</font></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Arial">approach, because the software is there. It might be like the <a href="http://science.gov/">Science.gov</a> portal, which OSTI operates.</font></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Arial">Ideally they will get all their articles via CHORUS and that is the hope.</font></div></blockquote><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><font face="Arial">David, </font><a href="https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=XCJMVOqAOsmC8Qep3oHIBQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=harnad+chorus+open+access">CHORUS</a><font face="Arial">, with its reliance on publishers is not an ideal hope, it is a worst-case nightmare!</font></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Arial">The primary consideration is cost because there is no new funding for the Public Access program.</font></div></blockquote><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><font face="Arial">That’s just fine. No money is needed from the Feds, just the adoption of the right OA mandate. And</font></div><div><font face="Arial">that happens to be the one that entails no cost to the Feds: Institutional Repository deposit,</font></div><div><font face="Arial">monitored and ensured by the institutions, as part of the fulfillment conditions for the funding.</font></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Arial">PMC is rich while the other agencies have very little money for this.</font></div></blockquote><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><font face="Arial">PMC is not a research funder! PMC does not mandate anything. NIH does. And NIH too,</font></div><div><font face="Arial">rich or not, should mandate institutional deposit (and then exporting to PMC). All cost-free</font></div><div><font face="Arial">software functions.</font></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Arial">However, there was a rumor about 5 months ago that NSF would go with an "any repository”</font></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Arial">approach, but still with the 12 month embargo. IPA covered it.</font></div></blockquote><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><font face="Arial">Fine, but it won’t work unless NSF specifies institutional repository deposit and adds an</font></div><div><font face="Arial">immediate-deposit clause, to ensure compliance monitoring and verification by institutions.</font></div><div><font face="Arial">The 12-month embargo on OA will be mooted by the institutions’ automated copy-request</font></div><div><font face="Arial">Button — as long as authors must deposit immediately and not just after the embargo!</font></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Arial">Now the rumor is that NSF will go the DOE route, but no one really knows what the agencies</font></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Arial">will do because the decisions simply have not been made. Hence my newsletter.</font></div></blockquote><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><font face="Arial">Fine, good to hear they are still open to different options. Let’s hope some of us can draw</font></div><div><font face="Arial">their attention to the objective evidence.</font></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font><blockquote type="cite"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><font face="Arial">The feds have little, if any,interest in what the Brits are doing. </font></div></blockquote><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><font face="Arial">I hope and believe you are wrong about that. The interest should not be in the UK per</font></div><div><font face="Arial">se but in empirical evidence on which to base an evidence-based policy.</font></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Arial">Neither APC nor immediate deposit are on the table. </font></span></blockquote><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div><font face="Arial">Good to remove APCs from the table, because the evidence there is negative.</font></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div><font face="Arial">But I hope other factors — like immediate deposit and institutional deposit — remain</font></div><div><font face="Arial">on the table, because the evidence is in their favor.</font></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Arial"><br></font></span></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Arial">But most of the agencies probably have to go through rulemaking to implement their programs </font></span></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Arial">so you can comment then, as can everyone. </font></span></div></blockquote><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><font face="Arial">I will of course comment again, as I have always done in the past. The question is whether I will be</font><div><font face="Arial">unheeded again, as in the past...<br></font><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Arial"><br></font></span></div><div><font face="Arial"><span class="s3">Harnad, S. (1999) Critiques of H. Varmus <i>E-biomed Proposal</i> </span><span class="s3"> </span></font></div><div><font face="Arial"><span class="s3"><a href="http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/22404/">http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/22404/</a></span><span class="s3"> </span></font></div><div><span class="s3"><font face="Arial"><a href="http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0801.htm"><span class="s2">http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0801.htm</span></a> </font></span></div><div><span class="s12"><span class="s13"><a href="http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0725.htm"><font face="Arial">http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0725.htm</font></a></span></span></div><div><span class="s12"><font face="Arial"><br></font></span></div><div><span class="s12"><font face="Arial"><div>(2004) Recommendations to UK Science/Technology Committee Open Access Self-Archiving Mandate</div><div><a href="http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm">http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm</a></div></font></span></div><div><span class="s12"><font face="Arial"><br></font></span></div><div><span class="s12"><font face="Arial"> (2011) What Is To Be Done About Public Access </font></span></div><div><span class="s12"><font face="Arial">to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications Resulting From Federally </font></span></div><div><span class="s12"><font face="Arial">Funded Research? (Response to US OSTP RFI). </font></span></div><div><span class="s12"><a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/273080/"><font face="Arial">http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/273080/</font></a></span></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div><font face="Arial">(2012) Public Access to Federally Funded Research </font></div><div><font face="Arial">(Harnad Response to US OSTP RFI) Open Access Archivangelism 865/866 </font></div><div><a href="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-.html"><font face="Arial">http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-.html</font></a></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">(2013) Follow-Up Comments for BIS Select Committee </font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">on Open Access. UK Parliament Publications and Records, Spring</font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">Issue <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/352011/">http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/352011/</a> </font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">(2013) Comments on HEFCE/REF Open Access Mandate Proposal. </font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">Open access and submissions to the REF post-2014 </font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial"><a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/349893/">http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/349893/</a> </font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">(2013) Evidence to House of Lords Science and Technology</font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">Select Committee on Open Access. House of Lords Science and Technology</font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">Committee on Open Access, Winter Issue,</font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">119-123. <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/348479/">http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/348479/</a> </font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">(2013) Evidence to BIS Select Committee Inquiry on Open Access. Written</font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">Evidence to BIS Select Committee Inquiry on Open Access, Winter</font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">Issue <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/348483/">http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/348483/</a> </font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">(2013) Recommandation au ministre québécois de l'enseignement supérieur. </font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><a href="http://j.mp/QUoaRecs">http://j.mp/QUoaRecs</a></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">(2013) Harnad Comments on Canada’s NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Draft Tri-Agency Open Access Policy. </font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="Arial">Canadian Tri-Agency Call for Comments, Autumn Issue <a href="http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/358972/">http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/358972/</a></font></div><div><font face="Arial"><br></font></div><div><font face="Arial">Stevan Harnad</font></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>