Budapest Open Access Initiative      

Budapest Open Access Initiative: BOAI Forum Archive

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

boaiforum messages

[BOAI] Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS)

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 00:27:06 -0400


Threading:      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS) from amsciforum AT gmail.com

--047d7b6245b0a72bf504e22634d2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM, David Wojick <dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us>wro=
te:


> The Federal OA program is controlled by the Federal Government, so all
> your talk of ceding control is just a rhetorical device. Neither the
> fundees, the institutions nor the journals control it, except to the exte=
nt
> that the journals make the publication decisions. So no one is ceding
> control to anyone. And I repeat that the journals are part of the
> community, a central part. (You are doing your private language thing
> again. You do it a lot.)
>
> Under CHORUS the lead author merely has to check a box indicating the
> funder. The institutions have to do nothing more, nor does the fundee. Th=
e
> journal then gives the article link to the agency and makes the article
> publicly available at the agency controlled time. This is enormously
> simpler than creating repositories that fundees have to populate and
> funders have to work with (and someone has to build and maintain). In
> essence the article is published and the agency links to it. That is all
> and it cannot be any simpler than this. Creating a parallel universe of
> redundant repositories must be more complex, costly and burdensome.
>

As far as I know, the publishers' CHORUS deal that you describe (and that I
have referred to in my not-so-private language argument as a Trojan Horse)
has not yet been accepted by the Federal Government, nor by its funding
agencies.

Maybe they will accept it, maybe they won't. I and many others have been
describing the many reasons they should *not* accept it.

You are repeating arguments about the redundancy and complexity and
costliness of repositories to which I and many others have already replied.

But I am not trying to persuade you that researchers using their keystrokes
to deposit in OA repositories is better for research and for OA than
letting publishers do it for them: The ones I and many others are trying to
persuade of that are the same ones that you and the rest of the publisher
lobby are trying to persuade of the opposite: the Federal government and
its research funding agencies.

May the best outcome (for the research community) win.

I want to close by reminding inquiring readers of just one of the many
points that David Wojick and the other CHORUS lobbyists keep passing over
in silence:

The Government directive is not to make funded research freely accessible
12 months after publication but *within 12 months of publication*.

The publishers' Trojan Horse would not only take mandate compliance out of
the hands of fundees, making compliance depend on publishers rather than
fundees, but *it would also ensure that the research would not be made
freely accessible one minute before the full 12 months had elapsed*.

If I were a publisher, interested only in protecting my current income
streams, come what may, I'd certainly lobby for that, just as I would lobby
for the untrammelled cigarette ads and zones, if I were a tobacco company,
interested only in protecting my current income streams, come what may; or
for the untrammelled manufacture and use of plastic bags, if I were a
plastic bag company with similar "community" interests.

CHORUS is a terrific way of locking in publisher embargoes and Delayed
Access for years and years to come, thereby leaving payment for Fools Gold
as the sole option for providing immediate OA.

Stevan Harnad

(Shades of Finch -- and RWA, and PRISM... The publishing lobby is a 
"part"
of the research "community" indeed, heroically defending 
"our" joint
interests! I'm ready for the usual next piece of rhetoric, about how
un-embargoed Green OA would destroy journal publishing, and with it peer
review and research quality and reliability... We've heard it
all<http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#38-worries>,
many times over, for close to 25 years now...)

> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:01 PM, David Wojick <dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us >
> wrote:
>
>  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 t=
o
> mandate (Green) OA, meaning that all published articles resulting from th=
e
> 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
> mandate 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 specifyin=
g
> 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 communit=
y
> 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 th=
e
> web, institutional repositories, harvesters, indexers and search engines.
>
> The only thing still missing is the OA content. And that's what publisher=
s
> are trying to hold back as long as possible, and to keep in their own han=
ds.
>
>  We simply do not need a new bunch of expensive redundant repositories
> like 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 10=
0%
> immediate OA is reached as soon as possible.
>
> Letting in the publishers' latest Trojan Horse, CHORUS, under the guise o=
f
> increasing efficiency and reducing expense, would in reality be letting
> publishers maximize Delayed Access and fend off universal Green OA in fav=
or
> 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.epr=
ints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-CHORUS-Yet-Another-Trojan-Horse-from-the-=
Publishing-Industry.html>would be funding agencies foolishly accepting publ=
ishers' "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 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 i=
s
> 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 wh=
y
> 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
> 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 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 t=
he
> 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 already consumes so much o=
f
> the scarce funds available for research) is attempting to do this under t=
he
> 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
>
>
>

--047d7b6245b0a72bf504e22634d2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:49 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>The Federal OA program is controlled by the Federal Government, so 
all
your talk of ceding control is just a rhetorical device. Neither the
fundees, the institutions nor the journals control it, except to the
extent that the journals make the publication decisions. So no one is
ceding control to anyone. And I repeat that the journals are part of the
community, a central part. (You are doing your private language thing
again. You do it a lot.)<br><br>
Under CHORUS the lead author merely has to check a box indicating the
funder. The institutions have to do nothing more, nor does the fundee.
The journal then gives the article link to the agency and makes the
article publicly available at the agency controlled time. This is
enormously simpler than creating repositories that fundees have to
populate and funders have to work with (and someone has to build and
maintain). In essence the article is published and the agency links to
it. That is all and it cannot be any simpler than this. Creating a
parallel universe of redundant repositories must be more complex, costly
and 
burdensome.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As far as I know,=
 the publishers&#39; CHORUS deal that you describe (and that I have 
referre=
d to in my not-so-private language argument as a Trojan Horse) has not yet =
been accepted by the Federal Government, nor by its funding 
agencies.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Maybe they will accept it, maybe 
they won&#39;t. I and =
many others have been describing the many reasons they should 
<i>not</i> ac=
cept it.</div><div><br></div><div>You are 
repeating arguments about the red=
undancy and complexity and costliness of repositories to which I and many o=
thers have already replied.=A0</div>
<div><br></div><div>But I am not trying to persuade you 
that researchers us=
ing their keystrokes to deposit in OA repositories is better for research a=
nd for OA than letting publishers do it for them: The ones I and many other=
s are trying to persuade of that are the same ones that you and the rest of=
 the publisher lobby are trying to persuade of the opposite: the Federal go=
vernment and its research funding agencies.</div>
<div><br></div><div>May the best outcome (for the 
research community) win.<=
/div><div><br></div><div>I want to close by 
reminding inquiring readers of =
just one of the many points that David Wojick and the other CHORUS lobbyist=
s keep passing over in silence:</div>
<div><br></div><div>The Government directive is not to 
make funded research=
 freely accessible 12 months after publication but <i>within 12 months of 
p=
ublication</i>.=A0</div><div><br></div><div>The publishers&#39; Trojan Hors=
e would not only take mandate compliance out of the hands of fundees, makin=
g compliance depend on publishers rather than fundees, but <i>it would 
also=
 ensure that the research would not be made freely accessible one minute be=
fore the full 12 months had elapsed</i>.</div>
<div><br></div><div>If I were a publisher, interested 
only in protecting my=
 current income streams, come what may, I&#39;d certainly lobby for that, 
j=
ust as I would lobby for the untrammelled cigarette ads and zones, if I wer=
e a tobacco company, interested only in protecting my current income stream=
s, come what may; or for the untrammelled manufacture and use of plastic ba=
gs, if I were a plastic bag company with similar &quot;community&quot; 
inte=
rests.</div>
<div><br></div><div>CHORUS is a terrific way of locking 
in publisher embarg=
oes and Delayed Access for years and years to come, thereby leaving payment=
 for Fools Gold as the sole option for providing immediate 
OA.=A0</div><div=
>
<br></div><div>Stevan 
Harnad</div><div><br></div><div>(Shades of Finch 
-- a=
nd RWA, and PRISM...=A0The publishing lobby is a &quot;part&quot; of 
the re=
search &quot;community&quot; indeed, heroically defending 
&quot;our&quot; j=
oint interests! I&#39;m ready for the usual next piece of rhetoric, about 
h=
ow un-embargoed Green OA would destroy journal publishing, and with it peer=
 review and research quality and reliability...=A0<a 
href=3D"http://www.epr=
ints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#38-worries">We&#39;ve heard it 
all</a>, many =
times over, for close to 25 years now...)</div>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 
.8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote 
type=3D"cite">On Sun, Jul 2=
1, 2013 at
3:01 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>There is no funder mandate on authors at this point, so you are
assuming a burdensome model that need not be implemented. <br><br>

</dd></dl><br>
Right now, there is a presidential (OSTP) directive to US federal funding
agencies to mandate (Green) OA.<br><br>
It is each funding agency that will accordingly design and implement its
own Green OA mandate, as the NIH did several years ago.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
=A0<br>

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

</dd></dl><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br>
=A0<br>

<dl>
<dd>CHORUS does this in a highly efficient manner, rendering an author
mandate unnecessary. <br><br>

</dd></dl><br>
CHORUS does nothing. It is simply a proposal by publishers to funding
agencies. <br><br>
And to suggest that the the reason funding agencies should welcome the
CHORUS proposal is efficiency is patent nonsense.<br><br>
To comply with their funder&#39;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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br><br>

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

</dd></dl><br>
And there are also already many ways to search OA articles on the web or
in repositories.<br><br>
So, correct: Search is no problem, and not an issue. In fact, it&#39;s a 
re=
d
herring.<br><br>
What is really at issue is: in whose hands should control over the time
and place of providing OA be?<br><br>
Answer: Funders and their fundees, not publishers.<br><br>

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

</dd></dl><br>
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.<br><br>
The only thing still missing is the OA content. And that&#39;s what
publishers are trying to hold back as long as possible, and to keep in
their own hands.<br>
=A0<br>

<dl>
<dd>We simply do not need a new bunch of expensive redundant repositories
like PMC.<br><br>

</dd></dl><br>
And the research community simply does not need to cede control over the
locus and timetable of providing OA to publishers. <br><br>

<dl>
<dd>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&#39;s
users using the journal. The publishers are highly motivated to make
CHORUS work.<br><br>

</dd></dl><br>
CHORUS is all deception (and perhaps self-deception too, if publishers
actually believe the nonsense 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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Letting in the publishers&#39; 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&#39; 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=A0 adapt naturally to what is optimal for research in
the online era.<br><br>
Stevan Harnad<br>
<br>
=A0At 02:09 PM 7/21/2013, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=3D"cite">
<dl>
<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> 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>

</dd><dd>1. The &quot;This&quot; is US federal funding 
agency Open Access
mandates.<br><br>

</dd><dd>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>

</dd><dd>3. The &quot;archiving&quot; is making the 
fundee&#39;s paper acce=
ssible
free for all all on the Web<br><br>

</dd><dd>4. The &quot;Trojan Horse&quot; is the attempt by 
publishers to ta=
ke
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>

</dd><dd>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>

</dd><dd>=A0
<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>

</dd><dd>The web is full of &quot;redundant 
archiving&quot;: the same docum=
ent
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>

</dd><dd>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>

</dd><dd>Nor does PMC&#39;s usefulness reside in the fact that 
it hosts the
full-texts 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>

</dd><dd>=A0
<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>

</dd><dd>1. &quot;This&quot; is about US federal funding 
agency Open Access
mandates.<br><br>

</dd><dd>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>

</dd><dd>3. The &quot;archiving&quot; is making the 
fundee&#39;s paper acce=
ssible
free 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>

</dd><dd>4. The &quot;Trojan Horse&quot; is the attempt by 
publishers to ta=
ke
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>

</dd><dd>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>

</dd><dd>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>

</dd><dd>Moreover, funder OA mandates are increasingly being 
complemented b=
y
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>

</dd><dd>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>

</dd><dd>=A0
<dl>
<dd>The journals are part of the research community and they have always
been the principal archive.<br><br>
</dd></dl><br>

</dd><dd>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>

</dd><dd>Until the online era, the &quot;principal 
archive&quot; has been t=
he
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>

</dd><dd>And that&#39;s another reason CHORUS is a Trojan 
Horse.<br>

</dd><dd>=A0
<dl>
<dd>With CHORUS they will be again. <br><br>
</dd></dl><br>

</dd><dd>What on earth does this mean? That articles in the 
publishers&#39;
proprietary sector will be opened up after a year?<br><br>

</dd><dd>That sounds like an excellent way to ensure that they 
won&#39;t ev=
er be
opened up any earlier, and that mandates will be powerless to make them
open up any earlier.<br>

</dd><dd>=A0
<dl>
<dd>After all the entire process is based on the article being published
in the journal. <br><br>
</dd></dl><br>

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

</dd><dd>=A0
<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>

</dd><dd>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 do 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>

</dd><dd>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>

</dd><dd>Immediate OA (as well as immediate-deposit plus immediate 
Almost-O=
A
via the Button) is definitely an alternative -- as well as a design
alternative.<br><br>

</dd><dd>But not if OSTP heeds the siren call of 
CHORUS.<br><br>

</dd><dd>Stevan Harnad<br><br>
<dl>
<dd>At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you
wrote:<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>
<font face=3D"times new roman">
</font></dd></dl>
</dd><dd>We are clearly not understanding one another:<br>

</dd><dd>Yes, the US funder mandates are extremely important, even 
if=A0
they still need a tweak (as noted).<br>

</dd><dd>Yes, OA has not yet reached a tipping point. (That was my
point.)<br>

</dd><dd>But no, Delayed Access is not OA, let alone Green OA, 
although tha=
t
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></dd></blockquote></dd></dl></dd></dl></blockquote></block=
quote>

<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</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:=20
</dd><dd>=A0=20
<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.)
</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.
</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.
</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.
</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>

</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>=20
</dd><dd>=A0=20
</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></dd></dl></dd></blockquote></dd></dl>


<dd>=A0=20
<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:=20
</font></dd><dd><font face=3D"times new 
roman">=A0=20
<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></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>
<font face=3D"times new roman"><br>

</font></dd><dd><font face=3D"times new 
roman">Let us fervently hope that t=
he 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>

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

</font></dd><dd><font face=3D"times new 
roman">CHORUS is just the latest su=
ccessor 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;=20
<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.
</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!
</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>.
</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.=20
</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.
</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!
</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.
</dd><dd>8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research 
expense fo=
r
research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers.
</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.
</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></font></dd>
<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
<dl>
<dd><font face=3D"times new roman">At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, 
Stevan Harnad
wrote:</font>
</dd></dl><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>

--047d7b6245b0a72bf504e22634d2--

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

[BOAI] Re: Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS)

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:29:48 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS) from amsciforum AT gmail.com
      • This Message
             [BOAI] Re: HEFCE's Open Access consultation announced from amsciforum AT gmail.com

--20cf3042754c23613904e2347ed4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM, David Wojick <dwojick AT 
craigellachie.us>wro=
te:

I have already responded to these points. The publisher's self interested
> motivation is to keep the web traffic to its journals.


At the expense (to research and researchers) of impeding the growth of OA
and OA mandates and ensuring that the allowable embargo length is always
the maximum 12 months. ("For immediate-OA, please pay the Fools-Gold OA
fee!|)

Studies suggest they are losing 20% to PMC.


And while publishers' download sites have lost the traffic, research has
gained a great deal of functionality, as well as OA.


> The publishers believe this, whether it is true or not, thus their
> motivation.
>

Their motivation is in no doubt. But the issue is not what is best for
publishers but what is best for research, researchers and the public that
funds them.


> The mandate is that the articles be made publicly accessible and the
> articles are the publisher's so they are not third party contractors,
> whatever that might mean.


My articles are my publisher's, not mine?

I think you might mean that the publishers are the holders of the
copyright, or exclusive vending rights.

Well we're talking about a mandate here -- by the party of the second part,
the author's funder, requiring the party of the first part, the author, to
make the research they've funded publicly accessible within a year of
publication at the very latest.

That's a condition of a contract the author must sign before ever doing the
research, let alone signing any subsequent contract with any party of the
third part regarding vending rights.

The fundees need play no role.


The fundees play no role? No role in what? The funder mandates bind the
fundees, not some other party.


> The publishers are making a ground breaking concession by agreeing to the
> Federal embargo deadlines.


Agreeing? It seems to me they don't have much choice! Who are publishers
conceding to? And conceding what?

If this is publisher largesse rather than federal government duress I would
really like to know to what we owe their newfound magnanimity...


> This is great news for OA. I have no idea what you mean by letting them
> sit. They will be on view in their on-line journals, which is arguably
> where they belong.
>

I think Christina's "let[ting] them sit" may have been an ill-chosen
descriptor, but I can still make sense of it:

Ceding the provision of public access to the publisher's site and the
publisher's timetable means that research must sit for 12 months,
accessible only to subscribers, even though the mandate states that they
must be made publicly accessible within 12 months *at the latest*. Fundees
could have deposited them in repositories immediately, and made them
publicly accessible earlier, or, if they wished to comply with a publishers
embargo, made them immediately Almast-OA, via the repository's Button,
instead of sitting inaccessibly for 12 months.

And before you reply "fundees can still do that if they want to," let 
me
remind you of the fundamental purpose of Green OA mandates: *It's to get
authors to provide OA*. Without them, they don't. Not because they don't
want to. But because without a mandate from their funders or institutions,
they dare not: because of fear of their publishers." The mandate releases
authors from that fear.

And the CHORUS variant -- in which "the fundee has no role" -- would 
leave
authors stuck in that fear, contractually unprotected by a funder mandate,
and would render the funder policy empty and ineffectual beyond its
absolutely minimum requirement, which is public access after 12 months (but
not a moment before).

And that would of course suit publishers just fine. In fact, maybe that's
the reason for their newfound magnanimity: "Concede" on public access 
after
a 12-month embargo, take control of hosting and providing it, and maybe
that pesky global clamor for immediate OA will go away -- or, better,
redirect authors toward the Fools Gold counter where they pay hybrid
publishers for immediate OA.


> The repository approach made sense when the publishers refused to provide
> access. That day has passed.
>

Don't bank on it. The clamor for access is growing and growing. And that's =
*
immediate* Open Access, not publisher-Delayed Access after 12 months.

Stevan Harnad

On Jul 23, 2013, at 8:50 AM, "Pikas, Christina K." <
Christina.Pikas AT JHUAPL.EDU> wrote:

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> The vast majority of OA advocates are not anti-publisher exactly but are
justifiably skeptical of publishers' motivations, activities, and proposals=
.
>
> This proposal is not a healthy one for scholarly communication, in my
opinion. The mandate is between the funders and the fundees and the
publishers are third party contractors. The US federal government often
likes to push off work to contractors that is inherently governmental and
that should be done by (less biased) government employees.
>
> The publishers' proposal may be an easier route to go and might be
attractive with the lobbying and the advocates like you pushing it, but in
the long run the publishers serve their own bottom lines (as they should in
a market economy) and not necessarily the best interests of scholarly
communication. The products of federally funded research are too important
to let sit and should be in repositories run by the funders and/or fundees.
>
> This is all in my opinion and is not the position of my employer (or
anyone else, for that matter).
>
> Christina Pikas
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:
SIGMETRICS AT listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick
> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:07 AM
> To: SIGMETRICS AT listserv.utk.edu
> Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Research Community Interests and the Publishing
Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS)
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>
> What Federal system design arguments have I not responded to? It is not
an ad hominem to point out that the Federal policy is not anti-publisher,
as many OA advocates are. It is an important fact about the policy. I have
to be repetitive because Harnad is presenting the same non-design arguments
over and over. Arguments such as that publishers cannot be trusted, access
should be immediate via institutional repositories, delayed access is not
open access, etc. My response does not vary.
>
> David Wojick
>
> On Jul 23, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Crist=F3bal Palmer <cmp AT 
CMPALMER.ORG> wrote:
>
>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 7:05 AM, David Wojick wrote:
>>>
>>> Your personal dislike of publishers is not a system design 
argument,
nor is it Federal policy.
>>
>> Your personal inability to stay focused on the arguments presented and
reliance instead on ad hominem plus repetition isn't a system design
argument either.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Crist=F3bal Palmer
>>
>> cmpalmer.org
>>
>

--20cf3042754c23613904e2347ed4
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM, 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">
I have already responded to these points. The publisher&#39;s self 
interest=
ed motivation is to keep the web traffic to its journals. 
</blockquote><div=
><br></div><div>At the expense (to research and 
researchers) of impeding th=
e growth of OA and OA mandates and ensuring that the allowable embargo leng=
th is always the maximum 12 months. (&quot;For immediate-OA, please pay 
the=
 Fools-Gold OA fee!|)</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Studies suggest they are 
losi=
ng 20% to PMC. 
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>And while 
publishers&#39; d=
ownload sites have lost the traffic, research has gained a great deal of fu=
nctionality, as well as OA.</div>
<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The publishers believe 
this, w=
hether it is true or not, thus their 
motivation.<br></blockquote><div><br><=
/div>
<div>Their motivation is in no doubt. But the issue is not what is best 
for=
 publishers but what is best for research, researchers and the public that =
funds them.</div><div>=A0</div><blockquote 
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The mandate is that the articles be made publicly accessible and the articl=
es are the publisher&#39;s so they are not third party contractors, 
whateve=
r that might mean. 
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>My articles are 
my publ=
isher&#39;s, not mine?</div>
<div><br></div><div>I think you might mean that the 
publishers are the hold=
ers of the copyright, or exclusive vending 
rights.</div><div><br></div><div=
>Well we&#39;re talking about a mandate here -- by the party of the 
second =
part, the author&#39;s funder,=A0requiring the party of the first 
part,=A0t=
he author,=A0to make the research they&#39;ve funded publicly accessible 
wi=
thin a year of publication at the very latest.</div>
<div>=A0</div><div>That&#39;s a condition of a contract 
the author must sig=
n before ever doing the research, let alone signing any subsequent contract=
 with any party of the third part regarding vending 
rights.</div><div><br>
</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-l=
eft:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The fundees need play no role. 
</block=
quote><div><br></div><div>The fundees play no role? 
No role in what? The fu=
nder mandates bind the fundees, not some other party.</div>
<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The publishers are making 
a gr=
ound breaking concession by agreeing to the Federal embargo deadlines. </bl=
ockquote>
<div><br></div><div>Agreeing? It seems to me they 
don&#39;t have much choic=
e! Who are publishers conceding to? And conceding 
what?</div><div><br></div=
><div>If this is publisher largesse rather than federal government 
duress I=
 would really like to know to what we owe their newfound magnanimity...</di=
v>
<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This is great news for OA. 
I h=
ave no idea what you mean by letting them sit. They will be on view in thei=
r on-line journals, which is arguably where they belong.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think 
Christina&#39;s &quot;let[ting] th=
em sit&quot; may have been an ill-chosen descriptor, but I can still make 
s=
ense of it:</div><div><br></div><div>Ceding the 
provision of public access =
to the publisher&#39;s site and the publisher&#39;s timetable means 
that re=
search must sit for 12 months, accessible only to subscribers, even though =
the mandate states that they must be made publicly accessible within 12 mon=
ths <i>at the latest</i>. Fundees could have deposited them in 
repositories=
 immediately, and made them publicly accessible earlier, or, if they wished=
 to comply with a publishers embargo, made them immediately Almast-OA, via =
the repository&#39;s Button, instead of sitting inaccessibly for 12 
months.=
</div>
<div><br></div><div>And before you reply 
&quot;fundees can still do that if=
 they want to,&quot; let me remind you of the fundamental purpose of Green 
=
OA mandates: <i>It&#39;s to get authors to provide OA</i>. 
Without them, th=
ey don&#39;t. Not because they don&#39;t want to. But because without a 
man=
date from their funders or institutions, they dare not: because of fear of =
their publishers.&quot; The mandate releases authors from that 
fear.</div>
<div><br></div><div>And the CHORUS variant -- in which 
&quot;the fundee has=
 no role&quot; -- would leave authors stuck in that fear, contractually 
unp=
rotected by a funder mandate, and would render the funder policy empty and =
ineffectual beyond its absolutely minimum requirement, which is public acce=
ss after 12 months (but not a moment before).</div>
<div><br></div><div>And that would of course suit 
publishers just fine. In =
fact, maybe that&#39;s the reason for their newfound magnanimity: 
&quot;Con=
cede&quot; on public access after a 12-month embargo, take control of 
hosti=
ng and providing it, and maybe that pesky global clamor for immediate OA wi=
ll go away -- or, better, redirect authors toward the=A0Fools Gold=A0counte=
r where they pay hybrid publishers for immediate OA.</div>
<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" 
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">The repository approach 
made s=
ense when the publishers refused to provide access. That day has passed.<br=
></blockquote>
<div><br></div><div>Don&#39;t bank on it. The 
clamor for access is growing =
and growing. And that&#39;s <i>immediate</i> Open Access, not 
publisher-Del=
ayed Access after 12 
months.</div><div><br></div><div>Stevan 
Harnad</div>
<div>=A0</div><div>
On Jul 23, 2013, at 8:50 AM, &quot;Pikas, Christina K.&quot; 
&lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:Christina.Pikas AT JHUAPL.EDU">Christina.Pikas AT 
JHUAPL.EDU</a>&gt; wrot=
e:<br>
<br>
&gt; Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" 
target=3D"_bl=
ank">http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; The vast majority of OA advocates are not anti-publisher exactly but 
a=
re justifiably skeptical of publishers&#39; motivations, activities, and 
pr=
oposals.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; This proposal is not a healthy one for scholarly communication, in my 
=
opinion. The mandate is between the funders and the fundees and the publish=
ers are third party contractors. The US federal government often likes to p=
ush off work to contractors that is inherently governmental and that should=
 be done by (less biased) government employees.<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; The publishers&#39; proposal may be an easier route to go and 
might be=
 attractive with the lobbying and the advocates like you pushing it, but in=
 the long run the publishers serve their own bottom lines (as they should i=
n a market economy) and not necessarily the best interests of scholarly com=
munication. The products of federally funded research are too important to =
let sit and should be in repositories run by the funders and/or fundees.<br=
>

&gt;<br>
&gt; This is all in my opinion and is not the position of my employer (or 
a=
nyone else, for that matter).<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Christina Pikas<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; -----Original Message-----<br>
&gt; From: ASIS&amp;T Special Interest Group on Metrics [mailto:<a 
href=3D"=
mailto:SIGMETRICS AT listserv.utk.edu">SIGMETRICS AT 
listserv.utk.edu</a>] On Beh=
alf Of David Wojick<br>
&gt; Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 8:07 AM<br>
&gt; To: <a href=3D"mailto:SIGMETRICS AT 
listserv.utk.edu">SIGMETRICS AT listserv=
.utk.edu</a><br>
&gt; Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] Research Community Interests and the 
Publish=
ing Lobby&#39;s Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):<br>
&gt; <a href=3D"http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" 
target=3D"_bl=
ank">http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a><br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; What Federal system design arguments have I not responded to? It is 
no=
t an ad hominem to point out that the Federal policy is not anti-publisher,=
 as many OA advocates are. It is an important fact about the policy. I have=
 to be repetitive because Harnad is presenting the same non-design argument=
s over and over. Arguments such as that publishers cannot be trusted, acces=
s should be immediate via institutional repositories, delayed access is not=
 open access, etc. My response does not vary.<br>

&gt;<br>
&gt; David Wojick<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; On Jul 23, 2013, at 7:33 AM, Crist=F3bal Palmer &lt;<a 
href=3D"mailto:=
cmp AT CMPALMER.ORG">cmp AT CMPALMER.ORG</a>&gt; 
wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example 
unsubscribe):<br>
&gt;&gt; <a 
href=3D"http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html" target=3D=
"_blank">http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html</a><br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 at 7:05 AM, David Wojick 
wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Your personal dislike of publishers is not a system 
design arg=
ument, nor is it Federal policy.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Your personal inability to stay focused on the arguments 
presented=
 and reliance instead on ad hominem plus repetition isn&#39;t a system 
desi=
gn argument either.<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; Thanks,<br>
&gt;&gt; --<br>
&gt;&gt; Crist=F3bal Palmer<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;&gt; <a href=3D"http://cmpalmer.org" 
target=3D"_blank">cmpalmer.org</a>=
<br>
&gt;&gt;<br>
&gt;<br>
<br>
</div></div><br></div>

--20cf3042754c23613904e2347ed4--

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

[BOAI] Re: HEFCE's Open Access consultation announced

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum AT gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:43:19 -0400


Threading: [BOAI] Re: Research Community Interests and the Publishing Lobby's Latest Trojan Horse (CHORUS) from amsciforum AT gmail.com
      • This Message

--047d7b6042be010e8b04e24b5028
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Alma Swan <a.swan AT talk21.com> wrote:

>  The UK=92s Higher Education Funding Council for England has announced it=
s
> consultation on Open Access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Framewor=
k.
> Details can be downloaded from
> http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2013/201316/#d.en.82765
>
> Responses should be made online by 1700 GMT on 30 October 2013.
>
> Alma Swan
> SPARC Europe
>

HARNAD Replies to HEFCE REF OA Policy Consultation questions


Question 1

*Do you agree that the criteria for open access are appropriate (subject to
clarification on whether accessibility should follow immediately on
acceptance or on publication)?*

*Yes. *

1.1 The HEFCE REF OA Policy should apply to the refereed, accepted version
of peer-reviewed research articles or refereed conference articles.

1.2 It should be deposited in the author=92s HEI repository, immediately up=
on
acceptance for publication.

1.3 Access to the deposit should be immediately Open Access where possible,
or, where deemed necessary, it can be made Closed Access if the publisher
requires an OA embargo.

1.4 The crucial thing is that the deposit should be made *at time of
acceptance, time-stamped as such, with a copy of the acceptance letter to
serve as the date marker.*

*Comments:*

The proposal is excellent. And if adopted and effectively implemented, it
will serve as a model for OA policies worldwide.


Question 2

*Do you agree with the role outlined for institutional repositories,
subject to further work on technical feasibility?*

*Yes.*

Fortunately, most UK HEI institutions already have institutional
repositories (IRs) that are already configured, or readily configurable, to
be compliant with HEFCE=92s proposed policy for REF. They also already have=
 a
date of deposit tag. The dated acceptance letter can be uploaded as a
supplementary document. The full text can be uploaded with access set as
either Open Access or Closed Access (during an embargo, in which case the
repositories also have a facilitated *eprint request Button* that can tide
over the usage needs of UK and worldwide researchers for the deposited
research during the allowable embargo).

Many HEIs are already use their IRs for submission to REF. The only change
required by the HEFCE policy will be to require the deposit to be made
immediately upon acceptance, rather than in batch, at the end of the year,
or the end of the REF cycle. But this is the crucial core of the policy
(and what will also make it an effective compliance mechanism for the RCUK
Mandate as well).

The IR software is also easily configurable so researchers can keep
updating their REF choices as they publish further articles, substituting a
later one for an earlier one, if they judge it more suitable for REF. What
is brilliant about the HEFCE proposal is that it ensures that all
potentially suitable articles are deposited immediately, in order to ensure
that they are eligible, even if they might later be superseded by a more
suitable article.

*Should the criteria require outputs to be made accessible through
institutional repositories at the point of acceptance or the point of
publication?*

*Deposit should definitely be required at point of acceptance rather than
at point of publication*, for the following reasons:

1.     The point of acceptance has a definite date, with the editor=92s dat=
ed
letter of acceptance serving as the time marker.

2.     The point of acceptance is also the natural point in the author=92s
workflow to do the deposit, again marked by a clear, unambiguous, dated
event: the letter of acceptance for publication.

3.     The date of publication is extremely vague and uncertain for
journals.

4.     The author does not know, at point of acceptance, when the article
will be published.

5.     The publication date of the article often has no calendar date.

6.     The publication date usually does not correspond to the date at
which an article actually appears: the article may appear earlier than the
publication date, but more often it appears later, sometime very much
later.

7.     The author often only finds out the date of publication after the
fact =96 sometimes long after the fact.

8.     All these possibilities are vague and uncertain, and the span of
uncertainty can be from several months to two years or even more, which is
even longer than most publishers=92 OA embargo length.

9.     Hence publication date is no basis for reliably and systematically
complying with a HEFCE immediate-deposit requirement by the author, nor for
monitoring and ensuring fulfilment by the author=92s HEI or by HEFCE.

10.  A further advantage of the acceptance date is that it is earlier, and
hence allows more and earlier access and usage of the funded research.

*Do you have any comments on these proposals?*

IR deposit, at point of acceptance, is a simple, clear, natural, readily
implementable and verifiable procedure for the author, the HEI and HEFCE,
as well as an excellent compliance verification mechanism for the RCUK OA
mandate. It is also an optimal model for the rest of the research world to
adopt globally. With it, HEFCE will be performing a great service not only
for UK and worldwide access to UK research output, but also for UK access
to the rest of the world=92s research output, with an exemplary policy,
suited for use by all.


Question 3

*Do you agree that the proposed embargo periods should apply by REF main
panel, as outlined above?*

*Yes.*

The length of the embargo is far less important than the requirement to
deposit in the author=92s institutional repository, and to deposit
immediately upon acceptance.

Embargoes should be as short as possible, but they can, if desired, be
allowed to vary by discipline. The IRs have the facilitated *eprint request
Button* to help tide over the usage needs of UK and worldwide researchers
for the deposited research during the allowable embargo.

*Do you agree with the proposed requirements for appropriate licences?*

It is not clear from the documentation what these license/re-use
requirements will be. I strongly urge not get bogged down in them. We are
talking here about UK research output. Once it is deposited and any embargo
elapses, deposits will be OA and hence can be searched, linked, downloaded,
printed, stored and text-mined by individual researchers and research
groups. They will also be harvested and full-text inverted for Boolean
search by Google and other harvesters. *All of this comes with the
territory in making them Open Access, and does not require any further
license.*

What would require further license permissions would be the right for
databases to harvest, data-mine and republish the texts. Do not get bogged
down in this now, if it creates any obstacles. We are only talking about UK
research output: 6% of worldwide research output. If the rest of the world
adopts the HEFCE immediate-deposit requirement too, OA will become 100%
globally, and all re-use rights authors wish to provide and users need will
follow soon after. But it would be a needless risk to let licensing
requirements hold back adoption or compliance of the HEFCE OA policy at
this point. And there are discipline differences here too, potentially even
bigger ones than differences in embargo length.

Go easy on licensing: It will all come after the HEFCE policy succeeds and
is adopted worldwide. Don=92t let licenses and re-use rights become a
sticking point even before the HEFCE mandate is adopted. Access is
infinitely more urgent than re-use/license needs; access needs are
universal across disciplines; re-use/license needs are not. And access is a
prerequisite for re-use rights, not vice versa. First things first.

*Do you have any comments on these proposals?*

Be flexible and pragmatic on licensing. Immediate IR deposit is the crucial
thing.


Question 4

*Do you agree that the criteria for open access should apply only to
journal articles and conference proceedings for the post-2014 REF?*

*Yes.*

Refereed journal articles and refereed conference articles have from its
inception been the primary targets of the worldwide Open Access movement,
because they are the only form of research output that is, without
exception, author giveaway content, written only for research uptake and
impact, not for royalty revenue.

It is for this reason that all authors of articles will readily comply with
an OA mandate: They all want their findings to be accessible to all their
potential users worldwide, not just to those at institutions that can
afford subscription access to the journal in which it happens to be
published.

For researchers, loss of access to their work means loss of uptake, usage,
applications and impact for their work. And the progress and funding of
their research, as well as their careers, depend on the uptake, usage,
applications and impact of their work.

*Books**.* But all of this becomes much more complicated and
exception-ridden when we move to monographs and books. Some books may fall
in the same motivational framework, but many are written in hope of royalty
income, so authors are not eager to give them away free for all. Also the
economics of book publication entail a much bigger investment in each book
by the publisher, who would likewise be reluctant to make the investment if
the book was made available as an online give-away.

But there is a simple solution for books: *Don=92t require them to be
deposited, just recommend it.* And authors have the option of depositing
books as Closed Access rather than Open Access, with no limit on how long
they can embargo OA. (Meanwhile, if they wish, they can provide individual
copies via the Button as and when they choose.)

*Data**.* Data are complicated in another way. The problem is not potential
royalties but *first-exploitation* rights. Researchers are not just
data-gatherers. They gather data because they want to do something with it.
To analyze and process it. They must be given a fair allotment of time to
do this. Otherwise, if they must make their data open to all immediately,
so anyone can analyze it, then they may as well not bother gathering it at
all, and simply wait to analyze the data that *others* have taken the time
and trouble to gather =96 and were then obliged to make open immediately.

The moral is that if article embargo lengths and licensing needs vary from
discipline to discipline, then the fair length of the period of exclusive
first-exploitation rights for data varies even more, not just from
discipline to discipline, but from research project to research project.

And again the solution is to encourage (but not require) depositing the
data and making it open as soon as possible. But no fixed embargo lengths.

*Comments:*

A successful HEFCE immediate-deposit policy for refereed journal and
conference articles will be an enormous positive contribution, and more
than enough as a first step. All the rest (re-use rights, the gradual
disappearance of article OA embargoes, and the extension of OA to other
kinds of content) will follow as a natural matter of course. It should not
be allowed to complicate what is otherwise an extremely timely and powerful
means of making UK research articles OA.


Question 5

*Do you agree that a notice period of two years from the date of the policy
announcement is appropriate to allow for the publication cycle of journal
articles and conference proceedings?*

            *No.*

I think two years is needlessly and unjustifiably long.

We are still now in the phase of REF 2014. As soon as that ends,
researchers and HEIs begin to prepare for REF 2020.

There is no reason at all why immediate-deposit upon acceptance for
articles accepted for publication starting 2014 should not begin in 2014
rather than in 2016, as a condition for REF 2020 eligibility.

Not even those HEIs that don=92t yet have IRs should be exceptions: Their
authors can start depositing at once in OpenDepot, the UK back-up
repository designed for that purpose.

*Comments:*

That said, there is no reason why HEFCE cannot show some flexibility in the
first two years, for inadvertent failures to comply immediately. But this
potential flexibility should not be publicized, for it will only encourage
lax compliance during the two designated years.


Question 6

*Do you agree that criteria for open access should apply only to those
outputs listing a UK HEI in the output=92s =91address=92 field for the post=
-2014
REF?*

*No.*

Every UK researcher who is submitting an article for REF should have to
deposit it in their IR immediately upon acceptance (except if they came to
the institution after the acceptance date).

*Comments:*

Better to be as inclusive as possible and handle would-be exceptions on a
case by case basis rather than declare explicit exceptions.


Question 7

*Which approach to allowing exceptions is preferable? *

I support *Option a**:* Full compliance; exceptions considered on case by
case basis, first by the HEI, and if not resolved, by the REF panel.

*There will be no basis for objections by publishers to immediate-deposit
in Closed Access.* The embargo length for Open Access is less important
(because of the Button) and will not (and should not) constrain authors=92
choice of journals).

External collaborators will certainly not object to Closed Access
immediate-deposit, and are very unlikely to object to OA either =96 and
certainly not post-embargo OA.

*Do you have any comments on these proposals?*

Percentage compliance criteria would be a very bad idea, and would
virtually be inviting institutions not to strive for 100%. Case-by-case
handling is an infinitely better way to exercise flexibility.

--047d7b6042be010e8b04e24b5028
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Alma Swan <span 
dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:a.swan AT talk21.com" target=3D"_blank">a.swan 
AT talk21.com</a>&gt;</spa=
n> wrote:<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote 
class=3D"gmail_quote" s=
tyle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc 
solid;padding-left:1ex">





<div>
<font face=3D"Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial"><span 
style=3D"font-size:=
12pt">The UK=92s Higher Education Funding Council for England has 
announced=
 its consultation on Open Access in the post-2014 Research Excellence Frame=
work. Details can be downloaded from <a 
href=3D"http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs=
/year/2013/201316/#d.en.82765" 
target=3D"_blank">http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pub=
s/year/2013/201316/#d.en.82765</a><br>


<br>
Responses should be made online by 1700 GMT on 30 October 
2013.<span><font =
color=3D"#888888"><br>
<br>
Alma Swan<br>
SPARC 
Europe</font></span></span></font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><=
div>














<h2><span lang=3D"EN-GB"><font>HARNAD Replies to 
HEFCE REF OA Policy Consul=
tation
questions</font></span></h2>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">=
=A0</span></p>

<h3><span lang=3D"EN-GB">Question 
1</span></h3>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB=
">Do you agree that the criteria for open access are
appropriate (subject to clarification on whether accessibility should follo=
w
immediately on acceptance or on publication)?</span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><i><u><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">Yes.
</span></u></i></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">1.1 
The HEFCE REF OA Poli=
cy should apply
to the refereed, accepted version of peer-reviewed research articles or
refereed conference articles. </span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">1.2 
It should be deposite=
d in the author=92s
HEI repository, immediately upon acceptance for publication. 
</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">1.3 
Access to the deposit=
 should be
immediately Open Access where possible, or, where deemed necessary, it can =
be
made Closed Access if the publisher requires an OA embargo. 
</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">1.4 
The crucial thing is =
that the deposit
should be made <i>at time of acceptance,
time-stamped as such, with a copy of the acceptance letter to serve as the =
date
marker.</i></span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB=
">Comments:</span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">The 
proposal is excellent=
. And if adopted
and effectively implemented, it will serve as a model for OA policies
worldwide.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">=
=A0</span></p>

<h3><span lang=3D"EN-GB">Question 
2</span></h3>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0cm"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">Do you agree with =
the role outlined for
institutional repositories, subject to further work on technical feasibilit=
y?</span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><i><u><span lan=
g=3D"EN-GB">Yes.</span></u></i></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang=3D"E=
N-GB">Fortunately, most UK HEI institutions already
have institutional repositories (IRs) that are already configured, or readi=
ly
configurable, to be compliant with HEFCE=92s proposed policy for REF. They =
also
already have a date of deposit tag. The dated acceptance letter can be uplo=
aded
as a supplementary document. The full text can be uploaded with access set =
as
either Open Access or Closed Access (during an embargo, in which case the
repositories also have a facilitated <i>eprint
request Button</i> that can tide over the usage needs of UK and worldwide 
r=
esearchers
for the deposited research during the allowable 
embargo).</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang=3D"E=
N-GB">Many HEIs are already use their IRs for
submission to REF. The only change required by the HEFCE policy will be to
require the deposit to be made immediately upon acceptance, rather than in
batch, at the end of the year, or the end of the REF cycle. But this is the
crucial core of the policy (and what will also make it an effective complia=
nce
mechanism for the RCUK Mandate as well).</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang=3D"E=
N-GB">The IR software is also easily configurable
so researchers can keep updating their REF choices as they publish further
articles, substituting a later one for an earlier one, if they judge it mor=
e
suitable for REF. What is brilliant about the HEFCE proposal is that it ens=
ures
that all potentially suitable articles are deposited immediately, in order =
to
ensure that they are eligible, even if they might later be superseded by a =
more
suitable article.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0cm"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">Should the criteri=
a require outputs to be
made accessible through institutional repositories at the point of acceptan=
ce
or the point of publication?</span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><i><span lang=
=3D"EN-GB">Deposit should definitely
be required at point of acceptance rather than at point of publication</spa=
n></i><span lang=3D"EN-GB">, for the following 
reasons:</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">1.<span style=3D"f=
ont-size:7pt;font-family:&#39;Times New 
Roman&#39;">=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span></s=
pan><span lang=3D"EN-GB">The point of acceptance has a
definite date, with the editor=92s dated letter of acceptance serving as th=
e time
marker.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">2.<span style=3D"f=
ont-size:7pt;font-family:&#39;Times New 
Roman&#39;">=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span></s=
pan><span lang=3D"EN-GB">The point of acceptance is also
the natural point in the author=92s workflow to do the deposit, again marke=
d by a
clear, unambiguous, dated event: the letter of acceptance for publication.<=
/span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">3.<span style=3D"f=
ont-size:7pt;font-family:&#39;Times New 
Roman&#39;">=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span></s=
pan><span lang=3D"EN-GB">The date of publication is
extremely vague and uncertain for journals. </span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">4.<span style=3D"f=
ont-size:7pt;font-family:&#39;Times New 
Roman&#39;">=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span></s=
pan><span lang=3D"EN-GB">The author does not know, at point
of acceptance, when the article will be published.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">5.<span style=3D"f=
ont-size:7pt;font-family:&#39;Times New 
Roman&#39;">=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span></s=
pan><span lang=3D"EN-GB">The publication date of the
article often has no calendar date.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">6.<span style=3D"f=
ont-size:7pt;font-family:&#39;Times New 
Roman&#39;">=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span></s=
pan><span lang=3D"EN-GB">The publication date usually does
not correspond to the date at which an article actually appears: the articl=
e
may appear earlier than the publication date, but more often it appears lat=
er,
sometime very much later. </span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">7.<span style=3D"f=
ont-size:7pt;font-family:&#39;Times New 
Roman&#39;">=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span></s=
pan><span lang=3D"EN-GB">The author often only finds out
the date of publication after the fact =96 sometimes long after the fact.</=
span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">8.<span style=3D"f=
ont-size:7pt;font-family:&#39;Times New 
Roman&#39;">=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span></s=
pan><span lang=3D"EN-GB">All these possibilities are vague
and uncertain, and the span of uncertainty can be from several months to tw=
o
years or even more, which is even longer than most publishers=92 OA embargo
length. </span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">9.<span style=3D"f=
ont-size:7pt;font-family:&#39;Times New 
Roman&#39;">=A0=A0=A0=A0 </span></s=
pan><span lang=3D"EN-GB">Hence publication date is no basis
for reliably and systematically complying with a HEFCE immediate-deposit
requirement by the author, nor for monitoring and ensuring fulfilment by th=
e
author=92s HEI or by HEFCE.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:54.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">10.<span style=3D"=
font-size:7pt;font-family:&#39;Times New Roman&#39;">=A0 
</span></span><spa=
n lang=3D"EN-GB">A further advantage of the
acceptance date is that it is earlier, and hence allows more and earlier ac=
cess
and usage of the funded research.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB=
">Do you have any
comments on these proposals?</span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">IR
deposit, at point of acceptance, is a simple, clear, natural, readily
implementable and verifiable procedure for the author, the HEI and HEFCE, a=
s
well as an excellent compliance verification mechanism for the RCUK OA mand=
ate.
It is also an optimal model for the rest of the research world to adopt
globally. With it, HEFCE will be performing a great service not only for UK=
 and
worldwide access to UK research output, but also for UK access to the rest =
of
the world=92s research output, with an exemplary policy, suited for use by =
all.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">=
=A0</span></p>

<h3><span lang=3D"EN-GB">Question 
3</span></h3>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0cm"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">Do you agree that =
the proposed embargo
periods should apply by REF main panel, as outlined 
above?</span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><u><span lang=
=3D"EN-GB">Yes.</span></u></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang=3D"E=
N-GB">The length of the embargo is far less
important than the requirement to deposit in the author=92s institutional
repository, and to deposit immediately upon acceptance.=A0 
</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang=3D"E=
N-GB">Embargoes should be as short as possible, but
they can, if desired, be allowed to vary by discipline. The IRs have the
facilitated <i>eprint request Button</i> to
help tide over the usage needs of UK and worldwide researchers for the
deposited research during the allowable embargo.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0cm"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">Do you agree with =
the proposed requirements
for appropriate licences?</span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang=3D"E=
N-GB">It is not clear from the documentation what
these license/re-use requirements will be. I strongly urge not get bogged d=
own
in them. We are talking here about UK research output. Once it is deposited=
 and
any embargo elapses, deposits will be OA and hence can be searched, linked,
downloaded, printed, stored and text-mined by individual researchers and
research groups. They will also be harvested and full-text inverted for Boo=
lean
search by Google and other harvesters. <i>All
of this comes with the territory in making them Open Access, and does not
require any further license.</i></span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang=3D"E=
N-GB">What would require further license
permissions would be the right for databases to harvest, data-mine and
republish the texts. Do not get bogged down in this now, if it creates any
obstacles. We are only talking about UK research output: 6% of worldwide
research output. If the rest of the world adopts the HEFCE immediate-deposi=
t
requirement too, OA will become 100% globally, and all re-use rights author=
s
wish to provide and users need will follow soon after. But it would be a
needless risk to let licensing requirements hold back adoption or complianc=
e of
the HEFCE OA policy at this point. And there are discipline differences her=
e
too, potentially even bigger ones than differences in embargo length.</span=
></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang=3D"E=
N-GB">Go easy on licensing: It will all come after
the HEFCE policy succeeds and is adopted worldwide. Don=92t let licenses an=
d
re-use rights become a sticking point even before the HEFCE mandate is adop=
ted.
Access is infinitely more urgent than re-use/license needs; access needs ar=
e
universal across disciplines; re-use/license needs are not. And access is a
prerequisite for re-use rights, not vice versa. First things 
first.</span><=
/p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB=
">Do you have any
comments on these proposals?</span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">Be
flexible and pragmatic on licensing. Immediate IR deposit is the crucial th=
ing.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">=A0</span></p>

<h3><span lang=3D"EN-GB">Question 
4</span></h3>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB=
">Do you agree that
the criteria for open access should apply only to journal articles and conf=
erence
proceedings for the post-2014 REF?</span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><u><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">Yes.</span></u></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">Refereed
journal articles and refereed conference articles have from its inception b=
een
the primary targets of the worldwide Open Access movement, because they are=
 the
only form of research output that is, without exception, author giveaway
content, written only for research uptake and impact, not for royalty reven=
ue.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">It is
for this reason that all authors of articles will readily comply with an OA
mandate: They all want their findings to be accessible to all their potenti=
al
users worldwide, not just to those at institutions that can afford subscrip=
tion
access to the journal in which it happens to be 
published.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">For
researchers, loss of access to their work means loss of uptake, usage,
applications and impact for their work. And the progress and funding of the=
ir
research, as well as their careers, depend on the uptake, usage, applicatio=
ns
and impact of their work.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">Books</span></i></b=
><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">.</span></b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB"> But all
of this becomes much more complicated and exception-ridden when we move to
monographs and books. Some books may fall in the same motivational framewor=
k,
but many are written in hope of royalty income, so authors are not eager to
give them away free for all. Also the economics of book publication entail =
a
much bigger investment in each book by the publisher, who would likewise be
reluctant to make the investment if the book was made available as an onlin=
e
give-away.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">But
there is a simple solution for books: <i>Don=92t
require them to be deposited, just recommend it.</i> And authors have the
option of depositing books as Closed Access rather than Open Access, with n=
o
limit on how long they can embargo OA. (Meanwhile, if they wish, they can
provide individual copies via the Button as and when they 
choose.)</span></=
p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><b><i><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">Data</span></i></b>=
<b><span lang=3D"EN-GB">.</span></b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB"> Data
are complicated in another way. The problem is not potential royalties but =
<i>first-exploitation</i> rights. Researchers
are not just data-gatherers. They gather data because they want to do somet=
hing
with it. To analyze and process it. They must be given a fair allotment of =
time
to do this. Otherwise, if they must make their data open to all immediately=
, so
anyone can analyze it, then they may as well not bother gathering it at all=
,
and simply wait to analyze the data that <i>others</i>
have taken the time and trouble to gather =96 and were then obliged to make=
 open
immediately.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">The
moral is that if article embargo lengths and licensing needs vary from
discipline to discipline, then the fair length of the period of exclusive
first-exploitation rights for data varies even more, not just from discipli=
ne
to discipline, but from research project to research 
project.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">And
again the solution is to encourage (but not require) depositing the data an=
d
making it open as soon as possible. But no fixed embargo 
lengths.</span></p=
>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB=
">Comments:</span><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB"></span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">A 
successful HEFCE immedi=
ate-deposit
policy for refereed journal and conference articles will be an enormous
positive contribution, and more than enough as a first step. All the rest
(re-use rights, the gradual disappearance of article OA embargoes, and the
extension of OA to other kinds of content) will follow as a natural matter =
of
course. It should not be allowed to complicate what is otherwise an extreme=
ly
timely and powerful means of making UK research articles 
OA.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">=A0</span></p>

<h3><span lang=3D"EN-GB">Question 
5</span></h3>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0cm"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">Do you agree that =
a notice period of two
years from the date of the policy announcement is appropriate to allow for =
the
publication cycle of journal articles and conference 
proceedings?</span></b=
></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;marg=
in-bottom:6.0pt;margin-left:0cm"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0 <u>No.</u></span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang=3D"E=
N-GB">I think two years is needlessly and
unjustifiably long.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang=3D"E=
N-GB">We are still now in the phase of REF 2014. As
soon as that ends, researchers and HEIs begin to prepare for REF 2020.</spa=
n></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang=3D"E=
N-GB">There is no reason at all why
immediate-deposit upon acceptance for articles accepted for publication
starting 2014 should not begin in 2014 rather than in 2016, as a condition =
for
REF 2020 eligibility.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoListParagraph" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span lang=3D"E=
N-GB">Not even those HEIs that don=92t yet have IRs
should be exceptions: Their authors can start depositing at once in OpenDep=
ot,
the UK back-up repository designed for that purpose.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB=
">Comments:</span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">That
said, there is no reason why HEFCE cannot show some flexibility in the firs=
t
two years, for inadvertent failures to comply immediately. But this potenti=
al
flexibility should not be publicized, for it will only encourage lax compli=
ance
during the two designated years.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">=
=A0</span></p>

<h3><span lang=3D"EN-GB">Question 
6</span></h3>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB=
">Do you agree that
criteria for open access should apply only to those outputs listing a UK HE=
I in
the output=92s =91address=92 field for the post-2014 
REF?</span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><u><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">No.</span></u></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">Every 
UK
researcher who is submitting an article for REF should have to deposit it i=
n their
IR immediately upon acceptance (except if they came to the institution afte=
r
the acceptance date).</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB=
">Comments:</span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">Better
to be as inclusive as possible and handle would-be exceptions on a case by =
case
basis rather than declare explicit exceptions.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">=A0</span></p>

<h3><span lang=3D"EN-GB">Question 
7</span></h3>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-bottom:6.0pt"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB=
">Which approach to
allowing exceptions is preferable? </span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span lang=3D"EN-GB">I
support <u>Option a</u><b>:</b> Full
compliance; exceptions considered on case by case basis, first by the HEI, =
and
if not resolved, by the REF panel.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><i><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">There will be no basis=
 for objections by
publishers to immediate-deposit in Closed 
Access.</span></i><span lang=3D"E=
N-GB"> The embargo length for Open Access is less
important (because of the Button) and will not (and should not) constrain
authors=92 choice of journals).</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bott=
om:6.0pt;margin-left:36.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">External
collaborators will certainly not object to Closed Access immediate-deposit,=
 and
are very unlikely to object to OA either =96 and certainly not post-embargo=
 OA.</span></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal"><b><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">Do you have any comments on =
these proposals?</span></b></p>

<p class=3D"MsoNormal" 
style=3D"margin-left:36.0pt"><span 
lang=3D"EN-GB">Pe=
rcentage compliance criteria would be a
very bad idea, and would virtually be inviting institutions not to strive f=
or
100%. Case-by-case handling is an infinitely better way to exercise
flexibility.</span></p>

</div></div>

--047d7b6042be010e8b04e24b5028--

        
--      
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 .