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

David Wojick dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US
Sun Jul 21 12:13:14 EDT 2013

Dear Stevan,

This is not about author self archiving, which is a separate issue, so I 
see no Trojan horse. It is about the design of the Federal program, where I 
see no reason for redundant Federal archiving . There is nothing in the 
CHORUS approach to the Federal program design that precludes author self 
archiving in institutional repositories as a separate activity.

The journals are part of the research community and they have always been 
the principal archive. With CHORUS they will be again. After all the entire 
process is based on the article being published in the journal. It is true 
that this is all future tense including the Federal program, but the design 
principles are here and now.

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.

David Wojick

At 09:50 AM 7/21/2013, you wrote:
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
> On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 7:57 
>AM, David Wojick 
><<mailto:dwojick at>dwojick at> 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 how 
>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 
>the 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 
>Trojan Horse is CHORUS, and, as noted, OA Advocates and the research 
>community are 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 
>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.
>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 (of 
>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 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.
>Stevan Harnad
>On Jul 20, 2013, at 11:56 PM, Stevan Harnad 
><<mailto:amsciforum at GMAIL.COM>amsciforum at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>>On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:46 PM, David Wojick 
>><<mailto:dwojick at>dwojick at> 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 publishers or 
>>CHORUS. The publishers are building CHORUS so that the agencies will use 
>>the publisher's websites and articles instead of a redundant repository 
>>like NIH uses. They are merely agreeing to the US Governments 
>>requirements, while trying to keep their users, so there is no Trojan 
>>horse here, just common sense. Immediate access is not an option in this 
>>Federal OA program. The OA community should be happy to get green OA.
>>1. The embargo length that the funding agencies allow is another matter, 
>>one I was discussing. (But of course the pressure for the embargoes comes 
>>from the publishers, not from the funding agencies.)
>>2. The 
>>Horse would be funding agencies foolishly accepting publishers' "CHORUS" 
>>invitation to outsource author self-archiving, -- and hence compliance 
>>with the funder mandate -- to publishers, instead of having fundees do it 
>>themselves, in their own institutional repositories.
>>3. To repeat: Delayed Access is not Open 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 is neither Green OA nor Gold 
>>OA. (Speaking loosely, one can call author-self-archiving after a 
>>publisher embargo "Delayed Green" and publisher provided free access on 
>>their website after an embargo "Delayed Gold," but it's not really OA at 
>>all if it's not immediate. And that's why it's so important to upgrade 
>>all funder mandates to make them immediate-deposit mandates, even if they 
>>are not immediate-OA mandates.)
>>Harnad: if delayed access is not open access in your view then why did 
>>you post the tipping point study, since it includes delayed access of up 
>>to 5 years? Most people consider delayed (green) access to be a paradigm 
>>of 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 
>>(mildly) criticizing the study in question for failing to distinguish 
>>Open Access from Delayed Access, and for declaring that Open Access had 
>>reached the "Tipping Point" when it certainly has not -- specifically 
>>because of publisher embargoes. [Please re-read my summary, still 
>>attached below: I don't think there is any ambiguity at all about what I 
>>said and meant.]
>>But OA advocates can live with the allowable funder mandate embargoes 
>><>for the time being -- as long as 
>>deposit is mandated to be done 
>><>immediately upon 
>>acceptance for publication, by the author, in the author's institutional 
>>repository, and not a year later, by the publisher, on the publisher's 
>>own website. Access to the author's deposit can be set as OA during the 
>>allowable embargo period, but meanwhile authors can provide Almost-OA via 
>>their repository's facilitated 
>><>Eprint Request Button.
>>Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access (ID/OA) Mandate: Rationale and Model
>>Access to Federally Funded Research (Response to US OSTP RFI)
>><>Comments on 
>>Proposed HEFCE/REF Green Open Access Mandate
>><mailto:amsciforum at GMAIL.COM>On Jul 20, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Stevan Harnad 
>><<mailto:amsciforum at GMAIL.COM>amsciforum at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>><mailto:dwojick at>On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:56 PM, David 
>>>Wojick <<mailto:dwojick at>dwojick at> 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 this 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 of Science of the US Department of Energy. He has a PhD in logic 
>>>and philosophy of science, an MA in mathematical logic, and a BS in 
>>>civil engineering.]
>>>Let us fervently hope that the US Government/OSTP will not be taken in 
>>>by this publisher Trojan Horse called 
>>>It is tripping point, not a tipping point.
>>>If not, we can all tip our hats goodbye to Open Access -- which means 
>>>free online access immediately upon publication, not access after a 
>>>one-year embargo.
>>>CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving 
>>>Access (OA) lobbying by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations 
>>>have been the 
>>>coalition" and the 
>>>Works Act."
>>>1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is 
>>>optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast R&D 
>>>industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that 
>>>funds the research.
>>>2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and 
>>>their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and 
>>>applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue 
>>>streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry 
>>>and must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era 
>>>has opened up for research, not vice versa!
>>>3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research 
>>>institutions (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the 
>>>world -- are increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See 
>>>4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA 
>>>to research progress by imposing 
>>>of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be 
>>>in the online era.
>>>5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out 
>>>of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both 
>>>the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA.
>>>6. And, without any sense of the irony, the publisher lobby (which 
>>>already consumes so much of the scarce funds available for research) is 
>>>attempting to do this under the pretext of saving "precious research 
>>>funds" for research!
>>>7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and 
>>>institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in 
>>>their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes.
>>>8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for 
>>>research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers.
>>>9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and 
>>>the insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of 
>>>the research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA.
>>>10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research 
>>>Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the 
>>>publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research.
>>>Let the the US Government not be taken in this time either.
>>>[And why does the US Government not hire consultants who represent the 
>>>interests of the research community rather than those of the publishing 
>>>Eisen, M. (2013) <>A CHORUS of 
>>>boos: publishers offer their "solution" to public access
>>>Giles, J. (2007) 
>>>'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 5 January 2007.
>>>Harnad, S. (2012) 
>>>Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public 
>>>Research Dog, Yet Again. Open Access Archivangelism 287 January 7. 2012
>>>At 01:39 PM 7/20/2013, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>>>>Summary: The findings of Eric Archambault's (2013) pilot study 
>>>>"<> The 
>>>>Tipping Point - Open Access Comes of Age" 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the SIGMETRICS mailing list