Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] Re: Open Access Week: Series of reports on OA
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
On Oct 25, 2014, at 4:24 PM, David Wojick <dwojick AT CRAIGELLACHIE.US> ↵ wrote: > Stevan, as I keep pointing out, the Federal government does not see it ↵ your way, > so repeating your way is rather beside the point. > > As for my role, when I have a Federal client I do not advocate policy. I ↵ do issue analysis > to facilitate policy decisions, or program design to implement them, or ↵ trouble shooting > when a program does not work. > > In the case of the Public Access program, the OSTP mandate was preceded by ↵ a lengthy > interagency deliberation. The DOE OSTI Director co-chaired that effort and ↵ I did a lot of > his staff work. The group failed to reach consensus because there were two ↵ opposing > schools of thought, which accounts for some of the vagueness in the ↵ mandate. > One school, led by PMC, wanted a PMC approach wherein the government ran ↵ its own repository. > (I call it PubFed Central.) The other, led by DOE, wanted to maximize the ↵ use of existing resources > in a 3 tiered approach. Use the publisher's version of record and website ↵ where possible, or a > repository if the publisher's version was not available, or a Federal ↵ repository as a last resort. > There was never, ever, any consideration of a repository mandate, much ↵ less immediate deposit. It sounds to me more like the "Federal government" has not yet worked ↵ out a coherent implementation of the OSTP mandate, which is vague or moot on the crucial implementation ↵ parameters we are discussing, and the many agencies — of which DOA/OSTI is only one — have not ↵ yet come to an agreement about them either. What is seems obvious is that the “3-tiered approach,” where the OA provision ↵ distributed two ways between the fundees (who are bound by the funder mandate) and publishers (who ↵ are not), and where the locus of the OA provision is distributed between institutional ↵ repositories, central repositories and publisher websites is the worst possible one, both for the authors and for ↵ monitoring and ensuring compliance. Yes, you’re quite right that the agencies did not consult me, as they did you. ↵ But I prefer to believe that they — like the UK funding councils, who have been at it much loner — ↵ remain open to evidence-based recommendations on the crucial implementation parameters, such ↵ as what should be deposited, how, when, where, by whom — and above all why. The optimal mandate is of course institutional deposit, with compliance ↵ monitored by the institution, and then central export or harvest if desired. (Users find OA content on the ↵ web these days, e.g., via google and google scholar: the notion of a central collection is already ↵ obsolete. No one deposits directly in google. But institutional deposit is crucial for compliance ↵ monitoring as well as institutional record-keeping. Vincent-Lamarre, P., Boivin, J., Gargouri, Y., Larivière, V., & Harnad, S. ↵ (2014). Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA Score. arXiv ↵ preprint arXiv:1410.2926. > At 12:10 PM 10/25/2014, you wrote: >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): ↵ http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html David, >> >> I am afraid I am less interested in your role as journalist than in ↵ your role as policy consultant to OSTI. >> >> As journalist you are reporting what the federal agencies are doing, ↵ but as a consultant you were >> influencing what a federal agency was doing. >> >> To cut to the quick: The simplest way to keep publishers out of ↵ federal agency or university OA policy >> is not to consult them at all. >> >> All Green OA mandates should require institutional deposit of the ↵ refereed final draft immediately >> upon acceptance for publication, and the allowable OA embargo length ↵ on the deposit should be >> decided by the federal agency (or university). >> >> That’s all. Publishers have nothing to do with it — it needs neither ↵ their approval nor their collaboration. >> >> It is attempts to get publishers involved in the implementation of the ↵ mandate that cause the needless >> confusions and conflicts: >> >> 1. Federal funders fund researcher (with tax-payer money). >> >> 2. Institutional authors conduct and report the research. >> >> 3. Peer researchers review the research reports. >> >> 4. Publishers fund the administration of the peer review (and in ↵ exchange they get exclusive >> subscription sale rights). >> >> 5. Funders and institutions mandate Green OA self-archiving (as a ↵ condition of funding, >> and university research performance evaluation) >> >> 6. Authors comply with the Green OA mandates — by depositing ↵ immediately upon acceptance, >> and making the deposit OA immediately, or after the allowable embargo ↵ at the latest. >> >> That’s all there is to it: Publishers have nothing to do with ↵ compliance with the mandates. >> >> Have you advised otherwise, in your capacity as consultant? >> >> Stevan Harnad >> >> >> On Oct 25, 2014, at 11:31 AM, David Wojick <dwojick AT ↵ CRAIGELLACHIE.US > wrote: >> >>> >>> Stevan (I prefer to reply at the top like most people here), >>> >>> As you should know, I am now a journalist, which I was prior to ↵ joining DOE in 2004. In this role I get to criticize everyone, including the ↵ publishers. My rag is http://insidepublicaccess.com/ which you might consider ↵ subscribing to in order to know what is actually going on. If you think the ↵ publishers have any sort of control you are mistaken, as the Feds are in ↵ charge. I have written about this in some detail. However, if you know of any ↵ US agency that is taking your proposals seriously I would love to hear about ↵ it. >>> >>> Something very interesting is going on, namely a group of medical ↵ students is investigating DOE, probably looking for improper liaison with the ↵ publishers (which I doubt exists). Here are some excerpts from this weeks issue ↵ of Inside Public Access: >>> >>> DOE hit with Public Access FOIA request >>> >>> Synopsis: The US Energy Dept. is responding to a Freedom of ↵ Information Act request targeting correspondence between DOE and the ↵ "publishing industry" regarding the Department's Public Access ↵ program. The FOIA request comes from the American Medical Student Association ↵ and appears to be related to their "Access to Medicine" campaign. The ↵ purpose of the request is unclear at this time. >>> >>> AMSA and the FOIA request >>> >>> Ms. Reshma Ramachandran from the American Medical Student ↵ Association (AMSA) has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with ↵ the US Energy Department. The request is reportedly for "Copies of all ↵ correspondence including electronic and paper communications, between all ↵ Department of Energy personnel tasked with developing the Department of ↵ Energy's plan for providing access to the results of federally funded research ↵ and the publishing industry relating to the development, drafting and ↵ implementation of said plan for providing access to the results of federally ↵ funded research released on August 4, 2014." DOE is working to collect and ↵ deliver all the requested documents. Everything prior to September 11, 2014, ↵ when the request was finalized, will be included. >>> >>> Interestingly, there is a recent precedent for the AMSA FOIA ↵ action. Kent Anderson, editor of the prestigious Scholarly Kitchen blog and ↵ President of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, did a FOIA action against ↵ PubMed Central that yielded a considerable amount of potentially damaging ↵ information. In particular, Anderson made a number of allegations of conflict ↵ of interest and other wrongs in some collaborations between PMC and certain ↵ publishers. >>> >>> FOIA actions have a tendency to chill communications between ↵ agencies and the public. Unfortunately this AMSA enquiry comes just when that ↵ sort of communication is most important, because DOE and the scholarly ↵ community must work closely together if Public Access is going to work well. As ↵ they say, the devil is in the details, and the details are now upon us. As we ↵ have documented here in Inside Public Access, there are a host of serious and ↵ complex procedural issues yet to be worked out. >>> >>> I have trouble believing it is worth it, but it remains to be seen ↵ what, if anything, AMSA finds. Perhaps the real danger is that innocent ↵ statements will be taken out of context and used politically, rather than to ↵ improve the Public Access program. On the other hand maybe there is something ↵ wrong going on. In any case the results may be quite interesting, now that the ↵ spotlight is on. >>> >>> A surprising development. Med students! >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> At 09:02 AM 10/25/2014, you wrote: >>>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): ↵ http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 24, 2014, at 5:05 PM, William Gunn < ↵ william.gunn AT MENDELEY.COM> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> DOA as an acronym for "Delayed Open Access" ↵ does have a certain ring to it, now that I think about it... >>>>>> William Gunn | Head of Academic Outreach, Mendeley | ↵ AT mrgunn >>>>>> http://www.mendeley.com/profiles/william-gunn | (650) ↵ 614-1749 >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 25, 2014, at 7:41 AM, David Wojick <dwojick AT ↵ CRAIGELLACHIE.US > wrote: >>>>> Are you referring to the fact that DOA usually means Dead ↵ On Arrival? Given that the US Public >>>>> Access program has opted for delayed access it is more ↵ like Dominant On Arrival, since the Feds >>>>> fund a significant fraction of all published research. In ↵ that regard I notice that the definition of DOA >>>>> does not mention government mandates, which it should. The ↵ US action may be decisive. >>>>> >>>>> Also the references to hybrid are somewhat muddled. Hybrid ↵ is not a kind of article access at all, >>>>> rather it is a kind of journal access. Perhaps we need a ↵ different set of definitions for articles and journals. >>>>> What does seem funny to me, as an observer, is that the ↵ publishers have basically said "Okay, if you >>>>> insist on giving us money to publish your articles, then ↵ we will take it." Wiley, for example, is bringing >>>>> out a bunch of new APC journals. At this point it looks ↵ like DOA and APC are the future of OA. Of course >>>>> that may change given time. >>>>> David Wojick >>>>> http://insidepublicaccess.com/ >>>> >>>> >>>> Try IDOA instead of DOA to bring access back to life ↵ immediately, >>>> and to hasten the (inevitable and well-deserved) demise of OA ↵ embargoes… >>>> >>>> And the feds will lead the way only if they ignore consultants ↵ who try to steer them in the direction >>>> of publisher control, publisher embargoes and DOA, and go IDOA ↵ instead. >>>> >>>> (Bravo to William Gunn for his spot-on pun!) >>>> >>>> Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal ↵ subscriptions unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access. >>>> LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28 >>>> Vincent-Lamarre, P., Boivin, J., Gargouri, Y., Larivière, V., ↵ & Harnad, S. (2014). >>>> Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: I. The MELIBEA ↵ Score. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.2926. >>>>
[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org .