Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive[BOAI] [Forum Home] [index] [prev] [next] [options] [help]
[BOAI] US Federal Agency Open Access Mandate Implementation
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ecs.soton.ac.uk>
On Oct 25, 2014, at 5:42 PM, David Wojick <dwojick AT CRAIGELLACHIE.US> ↵ wrote: > Stevan, I do not expect the various agencies to agree on a process. If ↵ they do it will be the DOE > approach, because the software is there. It might be like the Science.gov ↵ portal, which OSTI operates. > Ideally they will get all their articles via CHORUS and that is the hope. David, CHORUS, with its reliance on publishers is not an ideal hope, it is a ↵ worst-case nightmare! > The primary consideration is cost because there is no new funding for the ↵ Public Access program. That’s just fine. No money is needed from the Feds, just the adoption of the ↵ right OA mandate. And that happens to be the one that entails no cost to the Feds: Institutional ↵ Repository deposit, monitored and ensured by the institutions, as part of the fulfillment ↵ conditions for the funding. > PMC is rich while the other agencies have very little money for this. PMC is not a research funder! PMC does not mandate anything. NIH does. And NIH ↵ too, rich or not, should mandate institutional deposit (and then exporting to PMC). ↵ All cost-free software functions. > However, there was a rumor about 5 months ago that NSF would go with an ↵ "any repository” > approach, but still with the 12 month embargo. IPA covered it. Fine, but it won’t work unless NSF specifies institutional repository deposit ↵ and adds an immediate-deposit clause, to ensure compliance monitoring and verification by ↵ institutions. The 12-month embargo on OA will be mooted by the institutions’ automated ↵ copy-request Button — as long as authors must deposit immediately and not just after the ↵ embargo! > Now the rumor is that NSF will go the DOE route, but no one really knows ↵ what the agencies > will do because the decisions simply have not been made. Hence my ↵ newsletter. Fine, good to hear they are still open to different options. Let’s hope some of ↵ us can draw their attention to the objective evidence. > The feds have little, if any,interest in what the Brits are doing. I hope and believe you are wrong about that. The interest should not be in the ↵ UK per se but in empirical evidence on which to base an evidence-based policy. > Neither APC nor immediate deposit are on the table. Good to remove APCs from the table, because the evidence there is negative. But I hope other factors — like immediate deposit and institutional deposit — ↵ remain on the table, because the evidence is in their favor. > But most of the agencies probably have to go through rulemaking to ↵ implement their programs > so you can comment then, as can everyone. I will of course comment again, as I have always done in the past. The question ↵ is whether I will be unheeded again, as in the past... Harnad, S. (1999) Critiques of H. Varmus E-biomed Proposal http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/22404/ http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0801.htm http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/com0725.htm (2004) Recommendations to UK Science/Technology Committee Open Access ↵ Self-Archiving Mandate http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm (2011) What Is To Be Done About Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications Resulting From Federally Funded Research? (Response to US OSTP RFI). http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/273080/ (2012) Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Harnad Response to US OSTP RFI) Open Access Archivangelism 865/866 http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-.html (2013) Follow-Up Comments for BIS Select Committee on Open Access. UK Parliament Publications and Records, Spring Issue http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/352011/ (2013) Comments on HEFCE/REF Open Access Mandate Proposal. Open access and submissions to the REF post-2014 http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/349893/ (2013) Evidence to House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee on Open Access. House of Lords Science and Technology Committee on Open Access, Winter Issue, 119-123. http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/348479/ (2013) Evidence to BIS Select Committee Inquiry on Open Access. Written Evidence to BIS Select Committee Inquiry on Open Access, Winter Issue http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/348483/ (2013) Recommandation au ministre québécois de l'enseignement supérieur. http://j.mp/QUoaRecs (2013) Harnad Comments on Canada’s NSERC/SSHRC/CIHR Draft Tri-Agency Open ↵ Access Policy. Canadian Tri-Agency Call for Comments, Autumn Issue ↵ http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/358972/ Stevan Harnad > On Oct 25, 2014, at 5:00 PM, Stevan Harnad <harnad AT ↵ ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote: > >> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): ↵ http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 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: email@example.com .