Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] Re: "CHORUS": Yet Another Trojan Horse from the Publishing Industry
From: Jean-Claude =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gu=E9don?= <jean.claude.guedon AT umontreal.ca>
Thank you, Stevan. Spot on! Jean-Claude Guédon Le jeudi 06 juin 2013 à 10:59 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : > The OSTP should on no account be taken in by the Trojan Horse that is > being offered by the research publishing industry's "CHORUS." > > CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for > self-serving anti-Open Access (OA) lobbying by the publishing > industry. Previous incarnations have been the "PRISM coalition" ↵ and > the "Research Works Act." > > 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. > > 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. > > 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 ROARMAP. > > 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential > benefits of OA to research progress by imposing embargoes of > 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be > immediate in the online era. > > 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. > > 6. Moreover, the publisher lobby is attempting to do this > under the pretext of saving "precious research funds" ↵ for > research! > > 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. > > 8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research > expense for research, just a few extra keystrokes, from > researchers. > > 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. > > 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. > > Let the OSTP not be taken in this time either. > > Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 5 > January 2007. > > > > Linked version of this posting: > http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-.html > > -- > To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page: > http://www.soros.org/openaccess/forum.shtml?f -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org .