Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] 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 16:30:39 -0400


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

--047d7b621c6810087804e1f75138
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David Wojick <dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us>wro=
te:


>  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's website. Many o=
f
> the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so this will
> significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is implement=
ed
> 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 Offic=
e
> 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-publis=
hers-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 free
online access immediately upon publication, not access after a one-year
embargo.

CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open
Access (OA) 
lobbying<http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%2=
0OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&i=
e=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#lr=3D&c2=
coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive&hl=3Den&tbm=3Dblg&sclient=3Dpsy-ab&q=3D(lobbying+OR+=
lobby)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=3D(lobbying+OR+lob=
by)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&gs_l=3Dserp.3...14364.16=
642.0.17599.8.8.0.0.0.0.165.748.7j1.8.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.9T7OcUOL6gE&=
pbx=3D1&bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=3D41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=3D1260&bih=3D674=
>
by
the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the "PRISM
coalition<http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harna=
d%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&t=
bm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#lr=3D&c2coff=3D1&sa=
fe=3Dactive&hl=3Den&tbm=3Dblg&sclient=3Dpsy-ab&q=3D(prism+OR+pitbull+OR+pit=
-bull)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=3D(prism+OR+pitbul=
l+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.psy=
-ab.oY8Xj19aWIM&pbx=3D1&bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=3D41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=
=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.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tbm=3Db=
lg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#lr=3D&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Da=
ctive&hl=3Den&tbm=3Dblg&sclient=3Dpsy-ab&q=3D%22research+works+act%22+blogu=
rl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=3D%22research+works+act%22+blo=
gurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&gs_l=3Dserp.3...15413.22277.0.2=
3563.20.20.0.0.0.1.137.1792.17j3.20.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.JkaNf1Hb3Oc&pb=
x=3D1&bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=3D41411a1f1a5d3b02&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 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,* 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.o=
rg/>
.

4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to
research progress by imposing
embargoes<http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harna=
d%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&t=
bm=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#q=3Dembargo+OR+emba=
rgoes+OR+embargoed+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&lr=3D&c2coff=3D1&=
safe=3Dactive&hl=3Den&tbm=3Dblg&tbas=3D0&source=3Dlnt&sa=3DX&ei=3DxemwUeqME=
OSwyQGjn4DgBg&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<http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/delayed/laakso_bj_rk_delay_pr=
eprint.pdf>
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. 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 *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.eprints.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 Th=
e
> Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of 
Age<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/har=
nad/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 O=
A
> *. 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, delaye=
d
> Gold OA, immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline.
>
> See: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html
>
>

--047d7b621c6810087804e1f75138
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<font face=3D"times new roman, serif">On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 
3:56 PM, Davi=
d Wojick <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto: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"border:0px;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,&#39;Lucida Gra=
nde&#39;,Verdana,sans-serif;font-size:12px;margin:0px;padding:0px;vertical-=
align:baseline;color:rgb(51,51,51);line-height:18px;text-align:left;backgro=
und-color:rgb(255,255,255)">[David Wojick=A0</strong><span 
style=3D"color:r=
gb(51,51,51);font-family:Helvetica,Arial,&#39;Lucida 
Grande&#39;,Verdana,sa=
ns-serif;font-size:12px;line-height:18px;text-align:left;background-color:r=
gb(255,255,255)">=A0works part time as the Senior Consultant for 
Innovation=
 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 and philo=
sophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil engineerin=
g.]</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"font-size:13px;color:r=
gb(51,51,51);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">&quot;</span><a href=3D"htt=
p://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/scientific-publishers-offer-=
solu.html" 
style=3D"font-size:13px;color:rgb(0,51,102);background-color:rgb=
(255,255,255)">CHORUS</a><span 
style=3D"font-size:13px;color:rgb(51,51,51);=
background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">.&quot;=A0</span>=A0It is 
tripping point=
, not a tipping 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;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">CHORUS is just the latest 
successor o=
rganisation for self-serving=A0</span><a 
href=3D"http://www.google.ca/searc=
h?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blog=
url:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&amp;ie=3DUTF-8&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;tbs=3Dq=
dr:m&amp;num=3D100&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive#lr=3D&amp;c2coff=3D1&am=
p;safe=3Dactive&amp;hl=3Den&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;sclient=3Dpsy-ab&amp;q=3D(lob=
bying+OR+lobby)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&amp;oq=3D(lo=
bbying+OR+lobby)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&amp;gs_l=3D=
serp.3...14364.16642.0.17599.8.8.0.0.0.0.165.748.7j1.8.0...0.0...1c.1.16.ps=
y-ab.9T7OcUOL6gE&amp;pbx=3D1&amp;bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;fp=3D41411a1f=
1a5d3b02&amp;biw=3D1260&amp;bih=3D674" 
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102);font-si=
ze:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">anti-Open Access (OA) 
lobbying</=
a><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(25=
5,255,255)">=A0by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have 
been =
the &quot;</span><a 
href=3D"http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&a=
mp;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&am=
p;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive#lr=3D&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive&amp;h=
l=3Den&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;sclient=3Dpsy-ab&amp;q=3D(prism+OR+pitbull+OR+pit-=
bull)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&amp;oq=3D(prism+OR+pit=
bull+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=3D=
41411a1f1a5d3b02&amp;biw=3D1260&amp;bih=3D674" 
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)=
;font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">PRISM 
coalition</a><span=
 style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,2=
55)">&quot; and the &quot;</span><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;sa=
fe=3Dactive&amp;hl=3Den&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;sclient=3Dpsy-ab&amp;q=3D%22resea=
rch+works+act%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&amp;oq=3D%2=
2research+works+act%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&amp;g=
s_l=3Dserp.3...15413.22277.0.23563.20.20.0.0.0.1.137.1792.17j3.20.0...0.0..=
.1c.1.16.psy-ab.JkaNf1Hb3Oc&amp;pbx=3D1&amp;bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;fp=
=3D41411a1f1a5d3b02&amp;biw=3D1260&amp;bih=3D674" 
style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,1=
02);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Research Works 
Act</a=
><span 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255=
,255,255)">.&quot;</span></font><blockquote 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);fo=
nt-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<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)">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)">embargoes</a>=A0o=
f 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be=A0<a href=
=3D"http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/delayed/laakso_bj_rk_delay_preprint=
.pdf" style=3D"color:rgb(0,51,102)">immediate</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;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Let 
the=
 the US Government not be taken in this time 
either.</span></font></div><di=
v>
<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=
;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br>Eisen, M. (2013)=A0</font><a 
href=3D"http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?=
p=3D1382">A CHORUS of boos: publishers offer their =93solution=94 to 
public=
 access</a></div><div><br 
style=3D"background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><span=
 style=3D"font-family:&#39;times new 
roman&#39;,serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);f=
ont-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Giles, J. 
(2007)=A0</span>=
<a 
href=3D"http://cwis.usc.edu/hsc/nml/assets/AAHSL/Nature_PR%20Pit%20Bull%=
2007-0124.pdf" style=3D"font-family:&#39;times new 
roman&#39;,serif;color:r=
gb(0,51,102);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">PR&#39;s &#3=
9;pit bull&#39; takes on open access</a><span 
style=3D"font-family:&#39;tim=
es new 
roman&#39;,serif;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;background-color=
:rgb(255,255,255)">. Nature 5 January 2007.</span><br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51=
,51,51);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
<br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,25=
5,255)"><span style=3D"font-family:&#39;times new 
roman&#39;,serif;color:rg=
b(51,51,51);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Harnad, 
S. (2=
012)=A0</span><a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/=
867-guid.htm" style=3D"font-family:&#39;times new 
roman&#39;,serif;color:rg=
b(0,51,102);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Research 
Work=
s Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Resear=
ch Dog, Yet Again</a><span style=3D"font-family:&#39;times 
new roman&#39;,s=
erif;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">=
.=A0</span><em style=3D"font-family:&#39;times new 
roman&#39;,serif;color:r=
gb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">Open 
Access =
Archivangelism</em><span style=3D"font-family:&#39;times new 
roman&#39;,ser=
if;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">=
=A0287 January 7. 2012</span><br 
style=3D"color:rgb(51,51,51);font-size:13p=
x;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">
</div><div><font face=3D"times new roman, 
serif"><span style=3D"color:rgb(5=
1,51,51);font-size:13px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><br></span></fon=
t></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">
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html</a>
</font></blockquote></div>

</blockquote></div><br>

--047d7b621c6810087804e1f75138--

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

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

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:25:41 -0400


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

--047d7b6042bea01f4604e21c2081
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Wojick <dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us>wro=
te:

There is no funder mandate on authors at this point, so you are assuming a
> burdensome model that need not be implemented.
>

Right now, there is a presidential (OSTP) directive to US federal funding
agencies to mandate (Green) OA.

It is each funding agency that will accordingly design and implement its
own Green OA mandate, as the NIH did several years ago.

The mandate (requirement) will, as always, be on the *fundees*: the authors
of the articles that are to be made OA, as a condition of funding.


> The only mandate is on the Federal funding agencies to provide public
> access to funder-related articles 12 months after publication.
>

The presidential (OSTP) directive is to the US federal funding agencies to
mandate (Green) OA, meaning that all published articles resulting from the
research funded by each agency must be made OA -- within 12 months of
publication *at the latest.*
*
*
The articles are by fundees. The ones bound by the mandates are the
fundees. Fundees are the ones who must make their research OA, as a
condition of funding.


> CHORUS does this in a highly efficient manner, rendering an author mandat=
e
> unnecessary.
>

CHORUS does nothing. It is simply a proposal by publishers to funding
agencies.

And to suggest that the the reason funding agencies should welcome the
CHORUS proposal is *efficiency* is patent nonsense.

To comply with their funder's requirements, fundees must specify which
articles result from the funding. *The few fundee keystrokes for specifying
that are exactly the same few fundee keystrokes for self-archiving the
article in the OA repository.*

No gain in efficiency for funders or fundees in allowing publishers to host
and time the OA: *just a ruse to allow publishers to retain control over
the time and place of providing OA.*

Because of the monumental conflict of interest -- between publishers trying
to protect their current revenue streams and the research community trying
to make its findings as soon as widely as possible -- control over the time
and place of providing OA should on no account be surrendered by funders
and fundees to publishers.

Search is no problem as there are already many ways to search the journals.
>

And there are also already many ways to search OA articles on the web or in
repositories.

So, correct: Search is no problem, and not an issue. In fact, it's a red
herring.

What is really at issue is: in whose hands should control over the time and
place of providing OA be?

Answer: Funders and their fundees, *not publishers*.

DOE PAGES, described in the first article I listed in my original post, is
> a model of an agency portal that is being designed to use CHORUS. It will
> provide agency-based search as well. CHORUS as well will provide
> bibliographic search capability.
>

To repeat: The same functionality (and potentially much more and better
functionality) is available outside the control of publishers too, via the
web, institutional repositories, harvesters, indexers and search engines.

The only thing still missing is the OA content. And that's what publishers
are trying to hold back as long as possible, and to keep in their own hands=
.


> We simply do not need a new bunch of expensive redundant repositories lik=
e
> PMC.
>

And the research community simply does not need to cede control over the
locus and timetable of providing OA to publishers.

I am also beginning to wonder about your Trojan horse metaphor. The Trojan
> horse is a form of deception, but there is no deception here, just a
> logical response to a Federal requirement, one that keeps a journal's use=
rs
> using the journal. The publishers are highly motivated to make CHORUS wor=
k.
>

CHORUS is all deception (and perhaps self-deception too, if publishers
actually believe the nonsense about "efficiency" and 
"expense"), and the
"logic" is that of serving publishers' interests, not the interests 
of
research and researchers.

The simple truth is that the research community (researchers and their
institutions) are perfectly capable of providing Green OA for themselves,
cheaply and efficiently, in their own institutional OA repositories and
central harvesters -- and that this is the best way for them to retain
control over the time and place of providing OA, thereby ensuring that 100%
immediate OA is reached as soon as possible.

Letting in the publishers' latest Trojan Horse, CHORUS, under the guise of
increasing efficiency and reducing expense, would in reality be letting
publishers maximize Delayed Access and fend off universal Green OA in favor
of over-priced, double-paid (and, if hybrid, double-dipped) Fools Gold OA,
thereby locking in publishers' current inflated revenue streams and
inefficient modus operandi for a long time to come, and embargoing OA
itself, instead of making publishing -- a service industry -- evolve and
 adapt naturally to what is optimal for research in the online era.

*Stevan Harnad*

 At 02:09 PM 7/21/2013, you wrote:

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at
> 12:13 PM, David Wojick <dwojick AT craigellachie.us > wrote:
>
>  This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue, so I
> see no Trojan horse.
>
>
> 1. The "This" is US federal funding agency Open Access mandates.
>
> 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who 
is bound
> to comply with the conditions of the funder mandate.
>
> 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free 
for all
> all on the Web
>
> 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this 
out of th=
e
> hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hands of the
> publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed ha=
s
> a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web.
>
> 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be
> outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the
> mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it.
>
>  It is about the design of the Federal program, where I see no reason for
> redundant Federal archiving.
>
>
> The web is full of "redundant archiving": the same document may 
be stored
> and hosted on multiple sites. That's good for back-up and reliability and
> preservation, and part of the way the Web works. And it costs next to
> nothing -- and certainly not to publishers. (If publishers wish to save
> federal research money, let them charge less for journal subscriptions;
> don't fret about "redundant archiving.")
>
> PubMed Central (PMC) is a very valuable and widely used central search
> tool. Its usefulness is based on both its scope of coverage (thanks to
> mandates) and on its metadata quality. It borders on absurdity for
> publishers to criticize this highly useful and widely used resource as
> "redundant." It provides access where publishers do not.
>
> Nor does PMC's usefulness reside in the fact that it hosts the full-texts
> of the papers it indexes. It's the metadata and search capacity that make=
s
> PMC so useful. It would be equally useful if the URL for each full-text t=
o
> which PMC pointed were in each fundee's own institutional repository, and
> PMC hosted only the metadata and search tools. (Indeed, it would increase
> PMC's coverage and make it even more economical; many of us are hoping PM=
C
> and other central repositories like Arxiv will evolve in that direction.)
>
>  There is nothing in the CHORUS approach to the Federal program design
> that precludes author self archiving in institutional repositories as a
> separate activity.
>
>
> 1. "This" is about US federal funding agency Open Access 
mandates.
>
> 2. The "self" is the author, who is also the fundee, the one who 
is bound
> to comply the with conditions of the funder mandate.
>
> 3. The "archiving" is making the fundee's paper accessible free 
for all
> all on the Web. If authors self-archived of their own accord, "as a
> separate activity," there would have been no need for federal Open 
Access
> mandates.
>
> 4. The "Trojan Horse" is the attempt by publishers to take this 
out of th=
e
> hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hand of the
> publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and indeed ha=
s
> a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on the Web.
>
> 5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be
> outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the
> mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it.
>
> The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access
> only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-fr=
ee
> access within a year at the latest. Publishers have every incentive to ma=
ke
> (and keep) this the latest, by taking self-archiving out of authors' hand=
s
> and doing it instead of them, as late as possible.
>
> Moreover, funder OA mandates are increasingly being complemented by
> institutional OA mandates, which cover both funded and unfunded research.
> This is also why institutions have institutional repositories (archives),
> in which their researchers can deposit, and from which central repositori=
es
> can harvest. This is also the way to tide over research needs during OA
> embargoes, with the help of institutional repositories' immediate Almost-=
OA
> Button.
>
> And again, no need here for advice from publishers, with their conflicts
> of interest, on how institutions can save money on their "redundant
> archives" by letting publishers provide the OA in place of their
> researchers (safely out of the reach of institutional repositories'
> immediate Almost-OA Button).
>
>  The journals are part of the research community and they have always
> been the principal archive.
>
>
> Journals consist of authors, referees, editors and publishers. Publishers
> are not part of the research community (not even university or
> learned-society publishers); they earn their revenues from it.
>
> Until the online era, the "principal archive" has been the 
university
> library. In the online era it's the web. The publisher's sector of the we=
b
> is proprietary and toll-based. The research community's sector is Open
> Access.
>
> And that's another reason CHORUS is a Trojan Horse.
>
>  With CHORUS they will be again.
>
>
> What on earth does this mean? That articles in the publishers' proprietar=
y
> sector will be opened up after a year?
>
> That sounds like an excellent way to ensure that they won't ever be opene=
d
> up any earlier, and that mandates will be powerless to make them open up
> any earlier.
>
>  After all the entire process is based on the article being published in
> the journal.
>
>
> Yes, but what is at issue now is not publishing but access: when, where
> and how?
>
>  It is true that this is all future tense including the Federal program,
> but the design principles are here and now.
>
>
> And what is at issue here is the need to alert the Federal program that i=
t
> should on no account be taken in by CHORUS's offer to "let us do the
> self-archiving for you."
>
>  I repeat, immediate access is not a design alternative. The OSTP
> guidance is clear about that. So most of your points are simply irrelevan=
t
> to the present situation.
>
>
> The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access
> only after a year after publication: They require them to provide toll-fr=
ee
> access within a year at the latest.
>
> Immediate OA (as well as immediate-deposit plus immediate Almost-OA via
> the Button) is definitely an alternative -- as well as a design alternati=
ve.
>
> But not if OSTP heeds the siren call of CHORUS.
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
>  At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote:
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57
> AM, David Wojick <dwojick AT craigellachie.us > wrote:
>
>  I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more important
> as an OA tipping point.
>
>
> We are clearly not understanding one another:
>
> Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even if  they still
> need a tweak (as noted).
>
> Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my point.)
>
> But no, Delayed Access is not OA, let alone Green OA, although that is ho=
w
> publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green OA.
>
>  As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with
> CHORUS.
>
>
>
>
> Yes, that's the point: CHORUS is trying to take author self-archiving out
> of the hands  and off the sites of the research community, to put it in t=
he
> hands and on the site of publishers. That is abundantly clear.
>
> And my point was about how bad that was, and why: a Trojan Horse for the
> research  community and the future of OA.
>
> But the verb should be CHORUS "would be," not CHORUS 
"is" -- because,
> thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th publishers' Trojan Horse has
> been allowed in at all.
>
> (The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 2nd was the
> "Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the 
Finch
> Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates and the
> research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th publisher Troj=
an
> Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the research community a=
re
> working hard to keep it out!)
>
>  The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal
> submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no burd=
en
> on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly availab=
le
> from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo period. This is
> extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository model.
>
>
> Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of the
> future of OA.
>
> Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a fait accompli, and the hope (o=
f
> OA advocates and the concerned research community) is that it never will
> be.
>
> The only thing the "old NH repository model" (PubMed Central, 
PMC) needs
> is an upgrade to immediate institutional deposit, followed by automatic
> harvesting and import (after the allowable embargo has elapsed) by PMC or
> any other institution-external subject based
> harvester. With that, the OSTP mandate model would be optimal (for the
> time being).
>
> David, it is not clear why the very simple meaning of my first posting ha=
s
> since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will have to take
> any further failures to understand it as willful, and SIGMETRICS readers
> will be relieved to hear that I will make no further attempt to correct i=
t.
>
> Stevan Harnad
>  On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT 
GMAIL.COM> wrote=
:
>
>  Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46
> PM, David Wojick < <dwojick AT craigellachie.us> dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us>
> wrote:   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 for certain disciplines. This has nothing to do with the publisher=
s
> or CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will u=
se
> the publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository
> like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments requirement=
s,
> 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?/arc=
hives/1022-OA-2013-Tilting-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/100=
9-CHORUS-Yet-Another-Trojan-Horse-from-the-Publishing-Industry.html>would b=
e funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS"
> invitation to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance wi=
th
> 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 Access -- 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 fracti=
on
> 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 publish=
er
> embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on 
their websi=
te
> after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at all 
if it's no=
t
> immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade all funder mandate=
s
> to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they are not immediate-O=
A
> 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
> open 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 (mildl=
y)
> 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/july1=
0/harnad/07harnad.html>upon acceptance for publication, by the author, in t=
he 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)<htt=
p://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-guid.html>
> Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access 
Mandate<http://openacces=
s.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/991-.html>
>
>   On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad < <amsciforum AT 
GMAIL.COM>
> 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 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's
> website. Many of the journals involved presently have no OA aspect so thi=
s
> will significantly increase the percentage of OA articles when it is
> implemented 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 Office o=
f
> 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/sc=
ienceinsider/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 c=
oalition<http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&lr=3D&q=3Dharnad%20OR%20Harnad=
%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/&ie=3DUTF-8&tb=
m=3Dblg&tbs=3Dqdr:m&num=3D100&c2coff=3D1&safe=3Dactive#lr=3D&c2coff=3D1&saf=
e=3Dactive&hl=3Den&tbm=3Dblg&sclient=3Dpsy-ab&q=3D(prism+OR+pitbull+OR+pit-=
bull)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&oq=3D(prism+OR+pitbull=
+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.psy-=
ab.oY8Xj19aWIM&pbx=3D1&bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=3D41411a1f1a5d3b02&biw=
=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<http://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 of t=
he
> 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 The
> Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of 
Age<http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/har=
nad/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 publish=
ed
> 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 o=
ut
> is through a separate analysis of immediate Gold OA, delayed Gold OA,
> immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline.
>
> See: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html
>
>
>

--047d7b6042bea01f4604e21c2081
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:01 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:<div><br><div 
class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote c=
lass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px 
#ccc solid;=
padding-left:1ex">
<div>There is no funder mandate on authors at this point, so you are 
assumi=
ng
a burdensome model that need not be implemented. 
</div></blockquote><div><b=
r></div><div>Right now, there is a presidential (OSTP) directive 
to US fede=
ral funding agencies to mandate (Green) 
OA.</div><div><br></div><div>It is =
each funding agency that will accordingly design and implement its own Gree=
n OA mandate, as the NIH did several years ago.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The mandate (requirement) will, as 
always, be on the <i=
>fundees</i>: the authors of the articles that are to be made OA, as a 
cond=
ition of funding.</div><div>=A0</div><blockquote 
class=3D"gmail_quote" styl=
e=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc 
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>The only mandate is on
the Federal funding agencies to provide public access to funder-related
articles 12 months after publication. 
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><di=
v>The presidential (OSTP) directive is to the=A0US federal funding agencies=
 to mandate (Green) OA, meaning that all published articles resulting from =
the research funded by each agency must be made OA -- within 12 months of p=
ublication <i>at the latest.</i></div>
<div><i><br></i></div><div>The articles are 
by fundees. The ones bound by t=
he mandates are the fundees. Fundees are the ones who must make their resea=
rch OA, as a condition of 
funding.</div><div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc 
solid;padding-=
left:1ex">
<div>CHORUS does this in a highly
efficient manner, rendering an author mandate unnecessary. 
<br></div></bloc=
kquote><div><br></div><div>CHORUS does nothing. It 
is simply a proposal by =
publishers to funding 
agencies.=A0</div><div><br></div><div>And to 
suggest =
that the the reason funding agencies should welcome the CHORUS proposal is =
<i>efficiency</i> is patent nonsense.</div>
<div><br></div><div>To comply with their 
funder&#39;s requirements, fundees=
 must specify which articles result from the funding. <i>The few fundee 
key=
strokes for specifying that are exactly the same few=A0fundee=A0keystrokes =
for self-archiving the article in the OA repository.</i></div>
<div><br></div><div>No gain in efficiency for funders 
or fundees in allowin=
g publishers to host and time the OA: <i>just a ruse to allow publishers 
to=
 retain control over the time and place of providing 
OA.</i></div><div>
<br></div><div>Because of the monumental conflict of interest 
-- between pu=
blishers trying to protect their current revenue streams and the research c=
ommunity trying to make its findings as soon as widely as possible -- contr=
ol=A0over the time and place of providing OA should on no account be surren=
dered by funders and fundees to publishers.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Search is no 
problem as =
there are already many ways to search the
journals. 
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And 
there are also already=
 many ways to search OA articles on the web or in 
repositories.</div><div><=
br></div><div>So, correct: Search is no problem, and not an 
issue. In fact,=
 it&#39;s a red herring.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What is really at issue is: in 
whose hands should=A0con=
trol=A0over the time and place of providing OA 
be?</div><div><br></div><div=
>Answer: Funders and their fundees, <i>not 
publishers</i>.</div><div><br></=
div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 
.8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>DOE PAGES, described in the 
first artic=
le I listed in my
original post, is a model of an agency portal that is being designed to
use CHORUS. It will provide agency-based search as well. CHORUS as well
will provide bibliographic search capability. 
</div></blockquote><div><br><=
/div><div>To repeat: The same functionality (and potentially much more 
and =
better functionality) is available outside the control of publishers too, v=
ia the web, institutional repositories, harvesters, indexers and search eng=
ines.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The only thing still missing is the 
OA content. And tha=
t&#39;s what publishers are trying to hold back as long as possible, and 
to=
 keep in their own hands.</div><div>=A0</div><blockquote 
class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc 
solid;padding-left:1ex"=
>
<div>We simply do not need a new
bunch of expensive redundant repositories like 
PMC.<br></div></blockquote><=
div><br></div><div>And the research community simply does 
not need to cede=
=A0control=A0over the locus and timetable of providing OA to publishers.=A0=
</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>I am also 
beginning to w=
onder about your Trojan horse metaphor. The
Trojan horse is a form of deception, but there is no deception here, just
a logical response to a Federal requirement, one that keeps a journal&#39;s
users using the journal. The publishers are highly motivated to make
CHORUS 
work.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>CHORUS is all decept=
ion (and perhaps self-deception too, if publishers actually believe the non=
sense about &quot;efficiency&quot; and &quot;expense&quot;), 
and the &quot;=
logic&quot; is that of serving publishers&#39; interests, not the 
interests=
 of research and researchers.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The simple truth is that the 
research community (resear=
chers and their institutions) are perfectly capable of providing Green OA f=
or themselves, cheaply and efficiently, in their own institutional OA repos=
itories and central harvesters -- and that this is the best way for them to=
 retain control=A0over the time and place of providing OA, thereby ensuring=
 that 100% immediate OA is reached as soon as possible.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Letting in the publishers&#39; 
latest Trojan Horse, CHO=
RUS, under the guise of increasing efficiency and reducing expense, would i=
n reality be letting publishers maximize Delayed Access and fend off univer=
sal Green OA in favor of over-priced, double-paid (and, if hybrid, double-d=
ipped) Fools Gold OA, thereby locking in publishers&#39; current inflated 
r=
evenue streams and inefficient modus operandi for a long time to come, and =
embargoing OA itself, instead of making publishing -- a service industry --=
 evolve and =A0adapt naturally to what is optimal for research in the onlin=
e era.</div>
<div><br></div><div><b>Stevan 
Harnad</b></div><div><br></div><div>=A0At 
02:=
09 PM 7/21/2013, you wrote:</div><blockquote 
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc 
solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">Adminstrative info for
SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
<a href=3D"http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" 
target=3D"_blank">
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at
12:13 PM, David Wojick
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dwojick AT craigellachie.us" 
target=3D"_blank">dwojick AT c=
raigellachie.us</a>
&gt; wrote:<br><br>

<dl>
<dd>This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue,
so I see no Trojan horse. <br><br>

</dd></dl><br>
1. The &quot;This&quot; is US federal funding agency Open Access
mandates.<br><br>
2. The &quot;self&quot; is the author, who is also the fundee, the one
who is bound to comply with the conditions of the funder
mandate.<br><br>
3. The &quot;archiving&quot; is making the fundee&#39;s paper 
accessible fr=
ee
for all all on the Web<br><br>
4. The &quot;Trojan Horse&quot; is the attempt by publishers to take 
this
out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hands
of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and
indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on
the Web.<br>
<br>
5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be
outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the
mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it.<br>
=A0<br>

<dl>
<dd>It is about the design of the Federal program, where I see no reason
for redundant Federal archiving.<br><br>

</dd></dl><br>
The web is full of &quot;redundant archiving&quot;: the same document 
may
be stored and hosted on multiple sites. That&#39;s good for back-up and
reliability and preservation, and part of the way the Web works. And it
costs next to nothing -- and certainly not to publishers. (If publishers
wish to save federal research money, let them charge less for journal
subscriptions; don&#39;t fret about &quot;redundant
archiving.&quot;)<br><br>
PubMed Central (PMC) is a very valuable and widely used central search
tool. Its usefulness is based on both its scope of coverage (thanks to
mandates) and on its metadata quality. It borders on absurdity for
publishers to criticize this highly useful and widely used resource as
&quot;redundant.&quot; It provides access where publishers do
not.<br><br>
Nor does PMC&#39;s usefulness reside in the fact that it hosts the 
full-tex=
ts
of the papers it indexes. It&#39;s the metadata and search capacity that
makes PMC so useful. It would be equally useful if the URL for each
full-text to which PMC pointed were in each fundee&#39;s own institutional
repository, and PMC hosted only the metadata and search tools. (Indeed,
it would increase PMC&#39;s coverage and make it even more economical; many
of us are hoping PMC and other central repositories like Arxiv will
evolve in that direction.)<br>
=A0<br>

<dl>
<dd>There is nothing in the CHORUS approach to the Federal program design
that precludes author self archiving in institutional repositories as a
separate activity. <br><br>

</dd></dl><br>
1. &quot;This&quot; is about US federal funding agency Open Access
mandates.<br><br>
2. The &quot;self&quot; is the author, who is also the fundee, the one
who is bound to comply the with conditions of the funder mandate.
<br><br>
3. The &quot;archiving&quot; is making the fundee&#39;s paper 
accessible fr=
ee
for all all on the Web. If authors self-archived of their own accord,
&quot;as a separate activity,&quot; there would have been no need for
federal Open Access mandates.<br>
<br>
4. The &quot;Trojan Horse&quot; is the attempt by publishers to take 
this
out of the hands of the author/fundee/mandatee and put it into the hand
of the publisher, who is not the fundee, not bound by the mandate, and
indeed has a conflict of interest with making papers free for all all on
the Web.<br><br>
5. On no account should the compliance with the funder mandate be
outsourced and entrusted to a 3rd party that is not only not bound by the
mandate, but in a conflict of interest with it. <br><br>
The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access
only after a year after publication: They require them to provide
toll-free access within a year at the latest. Publishers have
every incentive to make (and keep) this the latest, by taking
self-archiving out of authors&#39; hands and doing it instead of them, as
late as possible.<br><br>
Moreover, funder OA mandates are increasingly being complemented by
institutional OA mandates, which cover both funded and unfunded research.
This is also why institutions have institutional repositories (archives),
in which their researchers can deposit, and from which central
repositories can harvest. This is also the way to tide over research
needs during OA embargoes, with the help of institutional repositories&#39;
immediate Almost-OA Button.<br><br>
And again, no need here for advice from publishers, with their conflicts
of interest, on how institutions can save money on their &quot;redundant
archives&quot; by letting publishers provide the OA in place of their
researchers (safely out of the reach of institutional repositories&#39;
immediate Almost-OA Button).<br>
=A0<br>

<dl>
<dd>The journals are part of the research community and they have always
been the principal archive.<br><br>

</dd></dl><br>
Journals consist of authors, referees, editors and publishers. Publishers
are not part of the research community (not even university or
learned-society publishers); they earn their revenues from 
it.<br><br>
Until the online era, the &quot;principal archive&quot; has been the
university library. In the online era it&#39;s the web. The 
publisher&#39;s
sector of the web is proprietary and toll-based. The research 
community&#39=
;s
sector is Open Access.<br><br>
And that&#39;s another reason CHORUS is a Trojan Horse.<br>
=A0<br>

<dl>
<dd>With CHORUS they will be again. <br><br>

</dd></dl><br>
What on earth does this mean? That articles in the publishers&#39;
proprietary sector will be opened up after a year?<br><br>
That sounds like an excellent way to ensure that they won&#39;t ever be
opened up any earlier, and that mandates will be powerless to make them
open up any earlier.<br>
=A0<br>

<dl>
<dd>After all the entire process is based on the article being published
in the journal. <br><br>

</dd></dl><br>
Yes, but what is at issue now is not publishing but access: when,
where and how?<br>
=A0<br>

<dl>
<dd>It is true that this is all future tense including the Federal
program, but the design principles are here and now.<br><br>

</dd></dl><br>
And what is at issue here is the need to alert the Federal program that
it should on no account be taken in by CHORUS&#39;s offer to &quot;let 
us d=
o
the self-archiving for you.&quot;<br><br>

<dl>
<dd>I repeat, immediate access is not a design alternative. The OSTP
guidance is clear about that. So most of your points are simply
irrelevant to the present situation.<br><br>

</dd></dl><br>
The federal mandates do not require fundees to provide toll-free access
only after a year after publication: They require them to provide
toll-free access within a year at the latest. <br><br>
Immediate OA (as well as immediate-deposit plus immediate Almost-OA via
the Button) is definitely an alternative -- as well as a design
alternative.<br><br>
But not if OSTP heeds the siren call of CHORUS.<br><br>
Stevan Harnad<br><br>

<dl>
<dd>At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<dd>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
<a href=3D"http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" 
target=3D"_blank">
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a>
<font face=3D"times new roman">On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 AM, 
David
Wojick
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dwojick AT craigellachie.us" 
target=3D"_blank">dwojick AT c=
raigellachie.us</a>
 &gt; wrote:<br><br></font>
<dl>
<dd>I think what the US Government is actually doing is far more
important as an OA tipping point.<br><br>
</dd></dl><font face=3D"times new roman"><br>

</font></dd><dd><font face=3D"times new 
roman">We are clearly not understan=
ding one another:<br><br>

</font></dd><dd><font face=3D"times new 
roman">Yes, the US funder mandates =
are extremely important, even if=A0
they still need a tweak (as noted).<br><br>

</font></dd><dd><font face=3D"times new 
roman">Yes, OA has not yet reached =
a tipping point. (That was my
point.)<br><br>

</font></dd><dd><font face=3D"times new 
roman">But no, Delayed Access is no=
t OA, let alone Green OA, although that
is how publishers would dearly love to define OA, and especially Green
OA.<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>As for your Trojan horse point (#2) there is no author archiving with
CHORUS.</dd></dl></font></dd></blockquote></dd>
</dl></blockquote><br><br>
<font face=3D"times new roman"><br>

<dd>Yes, that&#39;s the point: CHORUS is trying to take author 
self-archivi=
ng
out of the hands=A0 and off the sites of the research community, to
put it in the hands and on the site of publishers. That is abundantly
clear.<br><br>

</dd><dd>And my point was about how bad that was, and why: a Trojan 
Horse f=
or
the research=A0 community and the future of OA.<br><br>

</dd><dd>But the verb should be CHORUS &quot;would 
be,&quot; not CHORUS
&quot;is&quot; -- because, thankfully, it is not yet true that this 4th
publishers&#39; Trojan Horse has been allowed in at all. 
<br><br>

</dd><dd>(The 1st Trojan Horse was Prism: routed at the gates. The 
2nd was =
the
&quot;Research Works Act; likewise routed at the gates. The 3rd was the
Finch Report: It slipped in, but concerted resistance from OA Advocates
and the research community has been steadily disarming it. The 4th
publisher Trojan Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the
research community are working hard to keep it out!)<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>The author merely specifies the funder from a menu during the journal
submission process and the publisher does the rest. Thus there is no
burden on the authors and no redundant repository. The article is openly
available from the publisher after the Federally specified embargo
period. This is extremely efficient compared to the old NIH repository
model.</dd></dl></dd></font>
<br><br>
<font face=3D"times new roman"><br>

<dd>Indeed it would be, and would put publishers back in full control of
the future of OA.<br><br>

</dd><dd>Fortunately, the CHORUS deal is far from a fait accompli, 
and the
hope (of OA advocates </dd></font>and the concerned research 
community) is
that it never will be.<br>
<font face=3D"times new roman"><br>

<dd>The only thing the &quot;old NH repository model&quot; 
(PubMed
Central, PMC) needs is an upgrade </dd></font>to immediate 
institutional
deposit, followed by automatic harvesting and import (after the allowable
embargo has elapsed) by PMC or any other institution-external subject
based <br>

<dd><font face=3D"times new roman">harvester. With that, 
the OSTP mandate
model would be optimal (for the time being).<br><br>

</font></dd><dd><font face=3D"times new 
roman">David, it is not clear why t=
he very simple meaning of my first
posting has since had to be explained to you twice. I regret that I will
have to take any further failures to understand it as willful, and
SIGMETRICS readers will be relieved to hear that I will make no further
attempt to correct it.<br><br>

</font></dd><dd><font face=3D"times new 
roman">Stevan Harnad<br>
</font></dd>
<dl>
<dd>On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad
&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:amsciforum AT GMAIL.COM" 
target=3D"_blank">amsciforum AT GM=
AIL.COM</a>&gt;
wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<dd>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
<a href=3D"http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" 
target=3D"_blank">
http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a>
<a href=3D"mailto:dwojick AT craigellachie.us" 
target=3D"_blank">On Sat, Jul 2=
0, 2013 at 9:46
PM, David Wojick &lt;</a><a href=3D"mailto:dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us" target=
=3D"_blank">
dwojick AT craigellachie.us</a>&gt; wrote:
</dd><dd>=A0
<dl>
<dd>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 for 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&#39;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 program. The OA community should be happy to
get green OA.<br>
<br><br>

</dd></dl>
</dd><dd>1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is 
another
matter, not
<a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-T=
ilting-at-the-Tipping-Point.html" target=3D"_blank">
the one I was discussing</a>. (But of course the pressure for the
embargoes comes from the publishers, not from the funding agencies.)<br>

</dd><dd>2. The
<a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-CHORUS-Ye=
t-Another-Trojan-Horse-from-the-Publishing-Industry.html" 
target=3D"_blank"=
>
Trojan Horse</a> would be funding agencies foolishly accepting
publishers&#39; &quot;CHORUS&quot; 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.<br>

</dd><dd>3. To repeat: Delayed Access is not Open Access -- any 
more than P=
aid
Access is Open Access. Open Access is immediate, permanent online access,
toll-free, for all.<br>

</dd><dd>4. Delayed (embargoed) Access is publishers&#39; 
attempt to hold r=
esearch
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.<br>

</dd><dd>5. Green OA is author-provided OA; Gold OA is 
publisher-provided O=
A.
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 &quot;Delayed Green&quot; and publisher provided free
access on their website after an embargo &quot;Delayed Gold,&quot; 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.)<br><br>

<dl>
<dd>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 language.<br>
<br><br>

</dd></dl>
</dd><dd>Wojick: That is the way publishers would like to see the 
term OA
used, paradigmatically. But that&#39;s not what it means. And I was 
actuall=
y
(mildly) criticizing the study in question 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. [Please re-read my summary,
still attached below: I don&#39;t think there is any ambiguity at all about
what I said and meant.]<br><br>

</dd><dd>But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder 
mandate embarg=
oes
<a href=3D"http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13309/" 
target=3D"_blank">for the=
 time being</a> --
as long as deposit is mandated to be done
<a href=3D"http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html" 
target=3D"=
_blank">
immediately</a> upon acceptance for publication, by the author, in the
author&#39;s institutional repository, and not a year later, by the
publisher, on the publisher&#39;s own website. Access to the 
author&#39;s d=
eposit
can be set as OA during the allowable embargo period, but meanwhile
authors can provide Almost-OA via their repository&#39;s facilitated
<a href=3D"https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/DSPACE/RequestCopy" 
target=3D=
"_blank">Eprint
Request Button</a>.<br><br>

<dl>
<dd>
<a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/71-guid.html" =
target=3D"_blank">
The Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and
Model</a><br><br>

</dd><dd>
<a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/865-guid.html"=
 target=3D"_blank">
Public Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI)</a>
</dd><dd>=A0
</dd><dd><a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/991-.=
html" target=3D"_blank">
Comments on Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate</a><br>
</dd></dl></dd></blockquote></dd></dl>


<dd>=A0
<dl>
<dd><a href=3D"mailto:amsciforum AT GMAIL.COM" 
target=3D"_blank">On Jul 20, 20=
13, at 4:30 PM,
Stevan Harnad
&lt;</a><a href=3D"mailto:amsciforum AT GMAIL.COM" 
target=3D"_blank">amsciforu=
m AT GMAIL.COM</a>
&gt; wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<dd><font face=3D"times new roman">
<a href=3D"mailto:dwojick AT craigellachie.us" 
target=3D"_blank">On Sat, Jul 2=
0, 2013 at 3:56
PM, David Wojick &lt;</a><a href=3D"mailto:dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us" target=
=3D"_blank">
dwojick AT craigellachie.us</a>&gt; wrote:
</font></dd><dd><font face=3D"times new 
roman">=A0
<dl>
<dd>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.</dd></dl></font></dd><br><br>

</blockquote></dd></dl></dd>
<dd>[David Wojick works part time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation
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
and philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in civil
engineering.] <br>
</dd>
<font face=3D"times new roman"><br>

<dd>Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken
in by this publisher Trojan Horse called
&quot;<a 
href=3D"http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/scientif=
ic-publishers-offer-solu.html" target=3D"_blank">
 CHORUS</a>.&quot;=A0 It is tripping point, not a tipping
point.<br><br>

</dd><dd>If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- 
which me=
ans
free online access immediately upon publication, not access after a
one-year embargo.<br><br>

</dd><dd>CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for 
self-serving
<a 
href=3D"http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dharnad%20O=
R%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;tbm=3D=
blg&amp;sclient=3Dpsy-ab&amp;q=3D(lobbying+OR+lobby)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fo=
penaccess.eprints.org%2F&amp;oq=3D(lobbying+OR+lobby)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2F=
openaccess.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;bav=
=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;fp=3D41411a1f1a5d3b02&amp;biw=3D1260&amp;bih=3D67=
4" target=3D"_blank">
anti-Open Access (OA) lobbying</a> by the publishing industry. Previous
incarnations have been the
&quot;<a 
href=3D"http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dharn=
ad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.or=
g/&amp;ie=3DUTF-8&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;tbs=3Dqdr:m&amp;num=3D100&amp;c2coff=3D=
1&amp;safe=3Dactive#lr=3D&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive&amp;hl=3Den&amp;=
tbm=3Dblg&amp;sclient=3Dpsy-ab&amp;q=3D(prism+OR+pitbull+OR+pit-bull)+blogu=
rl: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...4=
1865.56372.1.57067.38.30.8.0.0.0.129.2666.28j2.30.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.=
oY8Xj19aWIM&amp;pbx=3D1&amp;bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;fp=3D41411a1f1a5d3=
b02&amp;biw=3D1260&amp;bih=3D674" target=3D"_blank">
 PRISM coalition</a>&quot; and the
&quot;<a 
href=3D"http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dharn=
ad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.or=
g/&amp;ie=3DUTF-8&amp;tbm=3Dblg&amp;tbs=3Dqdr:m&amp;num=3D100&amp;c2coff=3D=
1&amp;safe=3Dactive#lr=3D&amp;c2coff=3D1&amp;safe=3Dactive&amp;hl=3Den&amp;=
tbm=3Dblg&amp;sclient=3Dpsy-ab&amp;q=3D%22research+works+act%22+blogurl:htt=
p%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&amp;oq=3D%22research+works+act%22+blogu=
rl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2F&amp;gs_l=3Dserp.3...15413.22277.0=
.23563.20.20.0.0.0.1.137.1792.17j3.20.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.JkaNf1Hb3Oc&=
amp;pbx=3D1&amp;bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;fp=3D41411a1f1a5d3b02&amp;biw=
=3D1260&amp;bih=3D674" target=3D"_blank">
 Research Works Act</a>.&quot;
<dl>
<dd>1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it
is optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast
R&amp;D industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying
public that funds the research.<br>

</dd><dd>2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by 
researchers a=
nd
their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and
applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers&#39; 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!<br>

</dd><dd>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
<a href=3D"http://roarmap.eprints.org/" 
target=3D"_blank">ROARMAP</a>.<br>

</dd><dd>4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential 
benefits o=
f
OA to research progress by imposing
<a 
href=3D"http://www.google.ca/search?hl=3Den&amp;lr=3D&amp;q=3Dharnad%20O=
R%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+OR+embargoed+blogurl:http://openacce=
ss.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=3DxemwUeqMEOSwyQG=
jn4DgBg&amp;ved=3D0CBsQpwUoAA&amp;bav=3Don.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&amp;bvm=3Dbv.475=
34661,d.aWc&amp;fp=3D41411a1f1a5d3b02&amp;biw=3D1260&amp;bih=3D672" target=
=3D"_blank">
embargoes</a> of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and
should be
<a 
href=3D"http://www.openaccesspublishing.org/delayed/laakso_bj_rk_delay_p=
reprint.pdf" target=3D"_blank">
immediate</a> in the online era.
</dd><dd>5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to 
provide O=
A
out of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both
the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA.<br>

</dd><dd>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 saving &quot;precious research
funds&quot; for research!<br>

</dd><dd>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.<br>

</dd><dd>8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research 
expense fo=
r
research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers.<br>

</dd><dd>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.<br>

</dd><dd>10. The publishing industry&#39;s previous ploys -- 
PRISM and the
Research Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses,
promoting the publishing industry&#39;s interests disguised as the 
interest=
s
of research.</dd></dl></dd></font>
<br>

<dd><font face=3D"times new roman">Let the the US 
Government not be taken
in this time either.<br><br>

</font></dd><dd><font face=3D"times new 
roman">[And why does the US Governm=
ent not hire consultants who represent
the interests of the research community rather than those of the
publishing industry?]<br><br>

</font></dd><dd><font face=3D"times new 
roman">Eisen, M. (2013)
</font></dd><a 
href=3D"http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=3D1382" target=
=3D"_blank">A CHORUS of
boos: publishers offer their =93solution=94 to public 
access</a><br><br>

<dd>Giles, J. (2007)
<a 
href=3D"http://cwis.usc.edu/hsc/nml/assets/AAHSL/Nature_PR%20Pit%20Bull%=
2007-0124.pdf" target=3D"_blank">
PR&#39;s &#39;pit bull&#39; takes on open access</a>. Nature 
5 January 2007=
.<br><br>

</dd><dd>Harnad, S. (2012)
<a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.htm" =
target=3D"_blank">
Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag
The Public Research Dog, Yet Again</a>. Open Access Archivangelism 287
January 7. 2012<br>
<font face=3D"times new roman">
<dl>
<dd>At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad 
wrote:</dd></dl></font>
<br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<dd><font face=3D"times new roman">Summary: 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, 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, delayed Gold OA,
immediate Green OA, and delayed Green OA, by discipline.<br><br>

</font></dd><dd><font face=3D"times new 
roman">See:
<a 
href=3D"http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.=
html" target=3D"_blank">
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1022-OA-2013-.html</a>
</font></dd></blockquote></dd><br>

</div>

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

--047d7b6042bea01f4604e21c2081--

        
--      
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] [options] [help]

 E-mail:  openaccess@soros.org .