Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Re: Tripping Point: Delayed Access is not Open Access; "Chorus" is a Trojan Horse

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 23:56:25 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] Tripping Point: Delayed Access is not Open Access; "Chorus" is a Trojan Horse from amsciforum AT gmail.com
      • This Message

--047d7b6245b03e85c504e1fd8b08
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 PM, David Wojick <dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us>wro=
te:


> NIH uses a 12 month embargo and that is what the other Federal agencies
> are required to do, unless they can justify a longer or shorter period fo=
r
> certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publishers or CHORUS=
.
> The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use the
> publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository like
> NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments requirements,
> while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan horse here, just
> common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this Federal OA progra=
m.
> The OA community should be happy to get green OA.
>

1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter,
not the one I was
discussing<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-T=
ilting-at-the-Tipping-Point.html>.
(But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes from the publishers,
not from the funding agencies.)

2. The Trojan Horse<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-=
CHORUS-Yet-Another-Trojan-Horse-from-the-Publishing-Industry.html>would
be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS"
invitation *to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance
with the funder mandate -- to publishers*, instead of having fundees do it
themselves, in their own institutional repositories.

3. To repeat: *Delayed Access* is not *Open Acces*s -- any more than Paid
Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access,
toll-free, for all.

4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers' attempt to hold research
access hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with
obsolete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible.
All the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer
review. Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for
themselves, at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a fraction
of what institutions are paying publishers now for subscriptions.

5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is publisher-provided OA. But OA
means *immediate access*, so Delayed Access is neither Green OA nor Gold
OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a publisher
embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on their 
website
after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at all if 
it's not
immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade all funder mandates
to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they are not immediate-OA
mandates.)

Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did you
> post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up to 5
> years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm of op=
en
> access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making your own
> language.
>

Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the term OA used,
paradigmatically. But that's not what it means. And I was actually (mildly)
*criticizing* the study in question for failing to distinguish Open Access
from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had reached the
"Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically because of
publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still attached below: I
don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I said and meant.]

But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes for
the time being <http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/> -- as long as
deposit is mandated to be done
immediately<http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html>upon
acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's
institutional repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the
publisher's own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA
during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide
Almost-OA via their repository's facilitated Eprint Request
Button<https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy>
.

The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and
Model<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html>

Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP
RFI)<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-guid.html>

Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access
Mandate<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/991-.html>



> On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT GMAIL.COM> 
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick < <dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us=
>
> dwojick AT craigellachie.us> wrote:
>
>
>>  The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles 
base=
d
>> even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12
>> months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS 
that
>> meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher's website. 
Many =
of
>> the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will
>> significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is 
implemen=
ted
>> over the next few years.
>>
>
>> *[David Wojick * works part time as the Senior Consultant for 
Innovation
>> at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the 
Offi=
ce
>> of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic and
>> philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil
>> engineering.]
>
>
> Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will *not* be taken in
> by this publisher Trojan Horse called 
"CHORUS<http://news.sciencemag.org/=
scienceinsider/2013/06/scientific-publishers-offer-solu.html>
> ."  It is tripping point, not a tipping point.
>
> If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means fre=
e
> online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year
> embargo.
>
> CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Op=
en
> Access (OA) 
lobbying<http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad=
%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/=
&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#lr=3D&=
c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive&hl=3Den&tbm=3Dblg&sclient=3Dpsy-ab&q=3D(lobbying+O=
R+lobby)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=3D(lobbying+OR+l=
obby)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&gs_l=3Dserp.3...14364.=
16642.0.17599.8.8.0.0.0.0.165.748.7j1.8.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.9T7OcUOL6g=
E&pbx=3D1&bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=3D41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=3D1260&bih=3D6=
74> by
> the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the "PRISM
> 
coalition<http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Har=
nad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8=
&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#lr=3D&c2coff=3D1&=
safe=3Dactive&hl=3Den&tbm=3Dblg&sclient=3Dpsy-ab&q=3D(prism+OR+pitbull+OR+p=
it-bull)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=3D(prism+OR+pitb=
ull+OR+pit-bull)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&gs_l=3Dserp=
.3...41865.56372.1.57067.38.30.8.0.0.0.129.2666.28j2.30.0...0.0...1c.1.16.p=
sy-ab.oY8Xj19aWIM&pbx=3D1&bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=3D41411a1f1a5d3b02&bi=
w=3D1260&bih=3D674>"
> and the "Research Works 
Act<http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=
=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.epr=
ints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dacti=
ve#lr=3D&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive&hl=3Den&tbm=3Dblg&sclient=3Dpsy-ab&q=3D%2=
2research+works+act%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=3D=
%22research+works+act%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&gs_=
l=3Dserp.3...15413.22277.0.23563.20.20.0.0.0.1.137.1792.17j3.20.0...0.0...1=
c.1.16.psy-ab.JkaNf1Hb3Oc&pbx=3D1&bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=3D41411a1f1a5=
d3b02&biw=3D1260&bih=3D674>
> ."
>
> 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 thei=
r
> 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,* not vice versa*!
>
> 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<http://roarmap.eprints=
.org/>
> .
>
> 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to
> research progress by imposing 
embargoes<http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3D=
en&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://open=
access.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&s=
afe=3Dactive#q=3Dembargo+OR+embargoes+OR+embargoed+blogurl:http://openacces=
s.eprints.org/&lr=3D&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive&hl=3Den&tbm=3Dblg&tbas=3D0&so=
urce=3Dlnt&sa=3DX&ei=3DxemwUeqMEOSwyQGjn4DgBg&ved=3D0CBsQpwUoAA&bav=3Don.2,=
or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=3Dbv.47534661,d.aWc&fp=3D41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=3D1260&bih=
=3D672> of
> 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be 
immediate<h=
ttp://www.openaccesspublishing.org/delayed/laakso_bj_rk_delay_preprint.pdf>=
 in
> the online era.
>
> 5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out o=
f
> the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the
> timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA.
>
> 6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which alread=
y
> consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is attemptin=
g
> 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 the US Government not be taken in this time either.
>
> [And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the
> interests of the research community rather than those of the
> publishing industry?]
>
> Eisen, M. (2013) A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their =93solution=94 =
to
> public access <http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=3D1382>
>
> Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open 
access<http://cwis.usc.edu=
/hsc/nml/assets/AAHSL/Nature_PR%20Pit%20Bull%2007-0124.pdf>.
> Nature 5 January 2007.
>
> Harnad, S. (2012) Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing
> Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet 
Again<http://openaccess.e=
prints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.htm>
> . *Open Access Archivangelism* 287 January 7. 2012
>
> At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>>
>> *Summary:* The findings of Eric Archambault=92s (2013) pilot study =93 
T=
he
>> Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of 
Age<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ha=
rnad/Temp/ISSI-ARchambeault.pdf>=94
>> on the percentage of OA that is currently available are very timely,
>> welcome and promising. The study finds that the percentage of articles
>> published in 2008 that are OA in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not
>> estimate, however, *when in that 5-year interval the articles were 
made
>> OA*. Hence the study cannot indicate what percentage of articles being
>> published in 2013 is being made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what
>> percentage of articles published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only 
way=
 to
>> find that out is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, 
delay=
ed
>> Gold OA, immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline.
>>
>> See: 
<http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.ht=
ml>
>> http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html
>>
>>
>

--047d7b6245b03e85c504e1fd8b08
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 PM, David Wojick <span 
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:dwojick AT craigellachie.us" 
target=3D"_blank">dwojick AT craigellachi=
e.us</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote"><div>=A0</div><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 
.8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div>NIH uses a 12 month embargo 
and that is what =
the other Federal agencies are required to do, unless they can justify a lo=
nger or shorter period for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with=
 the publishers or CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the a=
gencies will use the publisher&#39;s websites and articles instead of a 
red=
undant repository like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governm=
ents requirements, while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan =
horse here, just common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this Fe=
deral OA program. The OA community should be happy to get green OA.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>1. 
The embargo length that the fundi=
ng agencies allow is another matter, not <a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprin=
ts.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-Tilting-at-the-Tipping-Point.html">=
the one I was discussing</a>. (But of course the pressure for the 
embargoes=
 comes from the publishers, not from the funding agencies.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>2. The <a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.p=
hp?/archives/1009-CHORUS-Yet-Another-Trojan-Horse-from-the-Publishing-Indus=
try.html">Trojan Horse</a> would be funding agencies foolishly 
accepting pu=
blishers&#39; &quot;CHORUS&quot; invitation <i>to outsource 
author self-arc=
hiving, -- and hence compliance with the funder mandate -- to publishers</i=
>, instead of having fundees do it themselves, in their own institutional r=
epositories.</div>
<div><br></div><div>3. To repeat: <i>Delayed 
Access</i> is not <i>Open Acce=
s</i>s -- any more than Paid Access is Open Access. Open Access is 
immediat=
e, permanent online access, toll-free, for 
all.</div><div><br></div><div>
4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers&#39; attempt to hold research 
a=
ccess hostage to their current revenue streams, forcibly co-bundled with ob=
solete products and services, and their costs, for as long as possible. All=
 the research community needs from publishers in the OA era is peer review.=
 Researchers can and will do access-provision and archiving for themselves,=
 at next to no cost. And peer review alone costs only a fraction of what in=
stitutions are paying publishers now for subscriptions.</div>
<div><br></div><div>5. Green OA is author-provided OA; 
Gold OA is publisher=
-provided OA. But OA means <i>immediate access</i>, so Delayed 
Access is ne=
ither Green OA nor Gold OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-arc=
hiving after a publisher embargo &quot;Delayed Green&quot; and 
publisher pr=
ovided free access on their website after an embargo &quot;Delayed 
Gold,&qu=
ot; but it&#39;s not really OA at all if it&#39;s not immediate. And 
that&#=
39;s why it&#39;s so important to upgrade all funder mandates to make them 
=
immediate-deposit mandates, even if they are not immediate-OA mandates.)</d=
iv>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div 
bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div=
>Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did you=
 post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up to 5 =
years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm of open=
 access. That is how the term is used. You are apparently making your own l=
anguage.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Wojick: That is the way publishers w=
ould like to see the term OA used, paradigmatically. But that&#39;s not 
wha=
t it means. And I was actually (mildly)=A0<i>criticizing</i> the 
study in q=
uestion for failing to distinguish Open Access from Delayed Access, and for=
 declaring that Open Access had reached the &quot;Tipping Point&quot; 
when =
it certainly has not -- specifically because of publisher embargoes. [Pleas=
e re-read my summary, still attached below: I don&#39;t think there is any 
=
ambiguity at all about what I said and meant.]</div>
<div><br></div><div>But OA advocates can live with the 
allowable funder man=
date embargoes <a 
href=3D"http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/">for the ti=
me being</a> -- as long as deposit is mandated to be done <a 
href=3D"http:/=
/www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html">immediately</a> 
upon accept=
ance for publication, by the author, in the author&#39;s institutional 
repo=
sitory, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the publisher&#39;s own 
=
website. Access to the author&#39;s deposit can be set as OA during the 
all=
owable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide Almost-OA via thei=
r repository&#39;s facilitated <a 
href=3D"https://wiki.duraspace.org/displa=
y/DSPACE/RequestCopy">Eprint Request Button</a>.</div>
<div><br></div></div><blockquote 
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;pad=
ding:0px"><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div><a 
href=3D"http://openaccess=
.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html">The 
Immediate-Deposit/Option=
al-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model</a></div>
</div></div><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div><br></div></div></div><div=
 class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div><a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/i=
ndex.php?/archives/865-guid.html">Public Access to Federally Funded 
Researc=
h (Response to US OSTP RFI)</a></div>
</div>=A0</div><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><div><a 
href=3D"http://opena=
ccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/991-.html">Comments on Proposed 
HEFCE=
/REF Green Open Access 
Mandate</a></div></div></div></blockquote><div 
class=
=3D"gmail_quote">
<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div 
bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div>=
On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad &lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:amsciforum=
 AT GMAIL.COM" target=3D"_blank">amsciforum AT 
GMAIL.COM</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<br></div><blockquote 
type=3D"cite"><div><font face=3D"times new roman, 
ser=
if">On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick <span 
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:dwojick AT craigellachie.us" 
target=3D"_blank"></a><a href=3D"m=
ailto:dwojick AT craigellachie.us" target=3D"_blank">dwojick 
AT craigellachie.us<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
</font><div class=3D"gmail_quote">
<div><font face=3D"times new roman, 
serif">=A0</font></div><blockquote clas=
s=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px 
#ccc solid;pad=
ding-left:1ex">

<div><font face=3D"times new roman, serif">
The US Government is developing a green OA system for all articles based
even in part on Federal funding, with a default embargo period of 12
months. The publishers have responded with a proposal called CHORUS that
meets that requirement by taking users to the publisher&#39;s website. Many
of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will
significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is
implemented over the next few 
years.<br></font></div></blockquote><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 
0.8ex;border-left-widt=
h:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-le=
ft:1ex">

<br><strong 
style=3D"vertical-align:baseline;line-height:18px;text-align:le=
ft;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:12px;margin:0px;font-family:Helvetica,Aria=
l,&#39;Lucida 
Grande&#39;,Verdana,sans-serif;padding:0px;border:0px">[David=
 Wojick=A0</strong><span 
style=3D"line-height:18px;text-align:left;color:rg=
b(51,51,51);font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,&#39;Lucida 
Grande&#=
39;,Verdana,sans-serif">=A0works part time as the Senior Consultant for 
Inn=
ovation at OSTI, the Office of Scientific and Technical Information, in the=
 Office of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic an=
d philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil eng=
ineering.]</span>=A0</blockquote>

</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><font 
face=3D"times new roman, serif"=
><br></font></div><div><font face=3D"times 
new roman, serif">Let us fervent=
ly hope that the US Government/OSTP will 
<u><i>not</i></u>=A0be taken in by=
 this publisher Trojan Horse called=A0<span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);fo=
nt-size:13px">&quot;</span><a 
href=3D"http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceins=
ider/2013/06/scientific-publishers-offer-solu.html" 
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51=
,102);font-size:13px" 
target=3D"_blank">CHORUS</a><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(=
51,51,51);font-size:13px">.&quot;=A0</span>=A0It is tripping 
point, not a t=
ipping point.</font></div>

<div><font face=3D"times new roman, 
serif"><br></font></div><div><font face=
=3D"times new roman, serif">If not, we can all tip our hats 
goodbye to Open=
 Access -- which means free online access immediately upon publication, not=
 access after a one-year embargo.</font></div>

<div><font face=3D"times new roman, 
serif"><br></font></div><div><font face=
=3D"times new roman, serif"><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13=
px">CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for 
self-serving=A0</s=
pan><a 
href=3D"http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dharnad=
%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/=
&amp;ie=3DUTF-8&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;tbs=3Dqdr:m&amp;num=3D100&amp;c2coff=3D1&=
amp;safe=3Dactive#lr=3D&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive&amp;hl=3Den&amp;tb=
m=3Dblg&amp;sclient=3Dpsy-ab&amp;q=3D(lobbying+OR+lobby)+blogurl:http%3A%2F=
%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&amp;oq=3D(lobbying+OR+lobby)+blogurl:http%3A%2=
F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&amp;gs_l=3Dserp.3...14364.16642.0.17599.8.8.0=
.0.0.0.165.748.7j1.8.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.9T7OcUOL6gE&amp;pbx=3D1&amp;b=
av=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;fp=3D41411a1f1a5d3b02&amp;biw=3D1260&amp;bih=3D=
674" style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102);font-size:13px" 
target=3D"_blank">anti-Op=
en Access (OA) lobbying</a><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13p=
x">=A0by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the 
&quot=
;</span><a 
href=3D"http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dha=
rnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.=
org/&amp;ie=3DUTF-8&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;tbs=3Dqdr:m&amp;num=3D100&amp;c2coff=
=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive#lr=3D&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive&amp;hl=3Den&a=
mp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;sclient=3Dpsy-ab&amp;q=3D(prism+OR+pitbull+OR+pit-bull)+bl=
ogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&amp;oq=3D(prism+OR+pitbull+OR+=
pit-bull)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&amp;gs_l=3Dserp.3.=
..41865.56372.1.57067.38.30.8.0.0.0.129.2666.28j2.30.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-=
ab.oY8Xj19aWIM&amp;pbx=3D1&amp;bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;fp=3D41411a1f1a=
5d3b02&amp;biw=3D1260&amp;bih=3D674" 
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102);font-size=
:13px" target=3D"_blank">PRISM coalition</a><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,=
51);font-size:13px">&quot; and the &quot;</span><a 
href=3D"http://www.googl=
e.ca/search?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivang=
elism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&amp;ie=3DUTF-8&amp;tbm=3Dblg&a=
mp;tbs=3Dqdr:m&amp;num=3D100&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive#lr=3D&amp;c2c=
off=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive&amp;hl=3Den&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;sclient=3Dpsy-ab&am=
p;q=3D%22research+works+act%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%=
2F&amp;oq=3D%22research+works+act%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprint=
s.org%2F&amp;gs_l=3Dserp.3...15413.22277.0.23563.20.20.0.0.0.1.137.1792.17j=
3.20.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.JkaNf1Hb3Oc&amp;pbx=3D1&amp;bav=3Don.2,or.r_c=
p.r_qf.&amp;fp=3D41411a1f1a5d3b02&amp;biw=3D1260&amp;bih=3D674" style=3D"co=
lor:rgb(0,51,102);font-size:13px" target=3D"_blank">Research 
Works Act</a><=
span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">.&quot;</span></font><blo=
ckquote style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">

<font face=3D"times new roman, serif">1. It is by now evident 
to everyone t=
hat OA is inevitable, because it is optimal for research, researchers, rese=
arch institutions, the vast R&amp;D industry, students, teachers, 
journalis=
ts and the tax-paying public that funds the research.<br>

<br>2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and 
th=
eir institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and applic=
ations -- not in order to guarantee publishers&#39; current revenue 
streams=
 and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and must ada=
pt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has opened up for=
 research,<em>=A0not vice versa</em>!<br>

<br>3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research 
institutio=
ns (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are i=
ncreasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See=A0<a 
href=3D"http://roarmap.eprin=
ts.org/" style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)" 
target=3D"_blank">ROARMAP</a>.<br>

<br>4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of 
OA =
to research progress by imposing=A0<a 
href=3D"http://www.google.ca/search?h=
l=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl=
:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&amp;ie=3DUTF-8&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;tbs=3Dqdr:=
m&amp;num=3D100&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive#q=3Dembargo+OR+embargoes+O=
R+embargoed+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&amp;lr=3D&amp;c2coff=3D1=
&amp;safe=3Dactive&amp;hl=3Den&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;tbas=3D0&amp;source=3Dlnt&=
amp;sa=3DX&amp;ei=3DxemwUeqMEOSwyQGjn4DgBg&amp;ved=3D0CBsQpwUoAA&amp;bav=3D=
on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;bvm=3Dbv.47534661,d.aWc&amp;fp=3D41411a1f1a5d3b02&am=
p;biw=3D1260&amp;bih=3D672" style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)" 
target=3D"_blank"=
>embargoes</a>=A0of 6-12 months or more on research access that can 
and sho=
uld be=A0<a 
href=3D"http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/delayed/laakso_bj_r=
k_delay_preprint.pdf" style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)" 
target=3D"_blank">immed=
iate</a>=A0in the online era.<br>

<br>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.<br><br>6. And, 
without =
any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which already consumes so much=
 of the scarce funds available for research) is attempting to do this under=
 the pretext of=A0<em>saving &quot;precious research funds&quot; 
for resear=
ch</em>!<br>

<br>7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and 
insti=
tutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in their i=
nstitutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes.<br=
>

<br>8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for 
res=
earch, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers.<br><br>9. 
Institution=
al 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.<br>

<br>10. The publishing industry&#39;s previous ploys -- PRISM and the 
Resea=
rch Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the p=
ublishing industry&#39;s interests disguised as the interests of 
research.<=
br>

</font></blockquote><font face=3D"times new roman, 
serif"><span style=3D"co=
lor:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">Let the the US Government not be 
taken in=
 this time either.</span></font></div><div>
<font face=3D"times new roman, 
serif"><br></font></div><div><font 
face=3D"t=
imes new roman, serif">[And why does the US Government not hire 
consultants=
 who represent the interests of the research community rather than those of=
 the publishing=A0industry?]<br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px=
">

<br>Eisen, M. (2013)=A0</font><a 
href=3D"http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?=
p=3D1382" target=3D"_blank">A CHORUS of boos: publishers 
offer their =93sol=
ution=94 to public access</a></div><div><br 
style><span style=3D"color:rgb(=
51,51,51);font-size:13px;font-family:&#39;times new 
roman&#39;,serif">Giles=
, J. (2007)=A0</span><a 
href=3D"http://cwis.usc.edu/hsc/nml/assets/AAHSL/Na=
ture_PR%20Pit%20Bull%2007-0124.pdf" 
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102);font-size:=
13px;font-family:&#39;times new roman&#39;,serif" 
target=3D"_blank">PR&#39;=
s &#39;pit bull&#39; takes on open access</a><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51=
,51);font-size:13px;font-family:&#39;times new 
roman&#39;,serif">. Nature 5=
 January 2007.</span><br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">

<br style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px"><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(5=
1,51,51);font-size:13px;font-family:&#39;times new 
roman&#39;,serif">Harnad=
, S. (2012)=A0</span><a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/ar=
chives/867-guid.htm" 
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102);font-size:13px;font-famil=
y:&#39;times new roman&#39;,serif" 
target=3D"_blank">Research Works Act H.R=
.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Y=
et Again</a><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;font-family:&=
#39;times new roman&#39;,serif">.=A0</span><em 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51)=
;font-size:13px;font-family:&#39;times new 
roman&#39;,serif">Open Access Ar=
chivangelism</em><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;font-fam=
ily:&#39;times new roman&#39;,serif">=A0287 January 7. 
2012</span><br style=
=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px">

</div><div><font face=3D"times new roman, 
serif"><span style=3D"color:rgb(5=
1,51,51);font-size:13px"><br></span></font></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc 
solid;padding-left:=
1ex">

<div><font face=3D"times new roman, serif">At 01:39 PM 
7/20/2013, Stevan Ha=
rnad wrote:</font><br><blockquote 
type=3D"cite"><font face=3D"times new rom=
an, serif">
<b>Summary:</b> The findings of Eric Archambault=92s (2013) pilot 
study
=93<a 
href=3D"http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/ISSI-ARchambeault.pd=
f" target=3D"_blank">
The Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age</a>=94 on the percentage of 
OA
that is currently available are very timely, welcome and promising. The
study finds that the percentage of articles published in 2008 that are OA
in 2013 is between 42-48%. It does not estimate, however, <i>when in that
5-year interval the articles were made OA</i>. Hence the study cannot
indicate what percentage of articles being published in 2013 is being
made OA in 2013. Nor can it indicate what percentage of articles
published before 2013 is OA in 2013. The only way to find that out is
through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA,
immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline.<br><br>
See:
<a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.=
html" target=3D"_blank">
</a><a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-20=
13-.html" 
target=3D"_blank">http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archiv=
es/1022-OA-2013-.html</a>
</font></blockquote></div>

</blockquote></div><br>
</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br>

--047d7b6245b03e85c504e1fd8b08--

        
--      
To unsubscribe from the BOAI Forum, use the form on this page:
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/boai-forum

[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .