David Wojick dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US
Thu Oct 24 11:55:39 EDT 2013

Stevan, I am well aware of your vision. I have read your NRC submission. It 
just does not happen to be what the US Government is implementing. The 
Brits wanted the US to follow them, but that too is not happening. The 
situation is as I describe it.


At 10:42 AM 10/24/2013, you wrote:
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>Apologies to the SIGMETRICS list if this thread is of insufficient 
>interest. I propose moving it to the sparc-oaforum.
>David Wojick wrote:
>I fear we are talking past each other Stevan.
>No, we are not talking past. There are simply three different topics:
>(1) Peter Suber's understanding of OA (versus your own, David),
>(2) practical considerations about how the OSTP mandate should be 
>(3) speculations about the future of refereed journal publishing
>I am talking about what is actually happening here, which is that the 
>non-NIH US agencies are implementing the OSTP mandate for a 12 month 
>delayed access program, just as NIH already does.
>mandates providing OA within a year (at most) is well-known.
>How the mandates will be formulated and implemented by each agency is 
>definitely not well-known, nor even fully decided as yet: it is still 
>being worked on, agency by agency (and I'm sure Peter Suber, Heather 
>Joseph, Alma Swan and others with expertise in OA and OA mandates are 
>being consulted).
>The most important practical implementation issues are:
>#1 Who must make the paper OA? the fundee or the publisher? Obviously for 
>a uniform, systematically verifiable mandate, it must be the fundee, the 
>one bound by the mandate, and not the publisher, the one that is in 
>conflict of interest with the mandate, and not bound to comply with it 
>(except if paid extra money).
>#2 Where must the paper be made OA? Here again, for a uniform, 
>systematically verifiable mandate, it must be in one verifiable locus, and 
>the only locus shared by all fundees, all funders and all institutions 
>(and for both Green and Gold OA) is the fundee's own institutional 
>repository - from whence it can be exported or harvested to other sites, 
>such as PubMed Central, if and when needed.
>#3 When must the paper be made OA? (The mandate already stipulates this: 
>within 12 months of publication at the latest.)
>#4 When must the paper be deposited? This is the most important question 
>of all, and carries with it the answer to the other questions: the fundee 
>must deposit the final, refereed, accepted draft, immediately upon 
>acceptance for publication -- not 12 months after publication -- 
>irrespective of whether it is published in a subscription journal or a 
>Gold OA journal, irrespective of whether the deposit is immediately made 
>OA or embargoed, and irrespective of whether the journal endorses 
>immediate OA or imposes an OA embargo.
>It is #4 that holds the key to a successful and effective OA mandate, the 
>Liège model "Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access" model (which Peter Suber 
>calls the "Dual Deposit/Release" model). The model has been tried and 
>tested, and has already proven to be more effective than any other mandate 
>model, and is both compatible with and subsumes all the other mandate models.
>The key to the Liège model's success is that it is convergent and 
>systematic rather than divergent and anarchic, mobilizing the universal 
>source of all research, funded and unfunded, Green, Grey and Gold, across 
>all disciplines -- the fundee's own institution -- to monitor and ensure 
>timely compliance as well as to tide over any embargo with the 
>repository's facilitated copy-request Button.
>All of this depends on requiring deposit, by the fundee, in the 
>institutional repository, immediately upon acceptance for publication, 
>which is the only universal, objective, verifiable calendar date of 
>reference for timely compliance. (Publication dates diverge wildly from 
>both the acceptance date and the actual date of appearance of the journal. 
>Whereas a 12 month embargo is the number to beat, publication date can 
>lead to an uncertainty of as much as two years or more.)
>Gargouri, Y., Lariviere, V., Gingras, Y., Brody, T., Carr, L., & Harnad, 
>S. (2012a). Testing the Finch Hypothesis on Green OA Mandate 
>Ineffectiveness. arXiv preprint arXiv:1210.8174. 
>Rentier, B., & Thirion, P. (2011). The Liège ORBi model: Mandatory policy 
>without rights retention but linked to assessment processes. 
>If you know of an agency that is doing something else I would like to hear 
>about it. Note that NIH has half of the Federal basic research budget so 
>this is merely rounding out the existing program.
>No U.S. funding agency has yet adopted the immediate-deposit clause, but 
>it has been adopted by the 
><http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/864-.html>FNRS in 
>Belgium, and has been proposed by 
>in the UK. It is also implicit (though not yet implemented or enforced) in 
>mandate model.
>The only big issue at this point is whether the non-NIH agencies will 
>collect and post accepted manuscripts, as NIH does, but perhaps via SHARE 
>repositories, or use CHORUS and link to the publisher websites.
>You leave out the most important option of all, which is that all papers 
>are deposited in the fundee's own institutional repository (and exported 
>if/when desired, to institution-external repositories).
>And of course on no account should the depositor or the locus be the 
>publisher (although of course the institutional repository can and will 
>also link to the version on the publisher's site, whether subscription or 
>Gold, OA or embargoed).
>I would like to draw everyone's attention again to the fact that David 
>Wojick is pressing for (and takes into account) only the solution that 
>favors the interests of the refereed journal publishing industry, not the 
>interests of research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, and 
>the tax-paying public that pays for it all.
>David seems to have OSTI's ear (I am not sure why) but I hope that OSTI 
>listens also to those who represent the interests of the research 
>community rather than the publishing community.
>And I hope all the other US funding agencies are likewise taking advice on 
>implementation from those who represent the interests of the research 
>community rather than the publishing community.
>Stevan Harnad
>On Oct 23, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Stevan Harnad 
><<mailto:amsciforum at GMAIL.COM>amsciforum at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>>On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 3:06 PM, David Wojick 
>><<mailto:dwojick at craigellachie.us>dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote:
>>Oh I see, Stevan. The subscription journals go out of business, just as I 
>>thought. I was afraid I had missed something in the analysis. Glad we agree.
>>To return to the original point, at this time the US Government has no 
>>interest in driving the subscription publishers out of business.
>>Downsizing to post-Green Fair-Gold is not going Out-of-Business. It is 
>>just evolving into Fair-Business.
>>But perhaps that is not so obvious if one is lobbying for preserving the 
>>current revenue streams of the refereed journal publishing business...
>>For effective Green mandates to prevail globally, the publishing tail 
>>must no longer be allowed to keep wagging the research dog 
>>(tax-payer-fed). I hope OSTI will also be hearing impartial advice as to 
>>what will be best for research, researchers, and the tax-payers' 
>>investment therein.
>>Don't worry, though. Publishers will adapt; journals will survive 
>>(because peer review will survive, as a service) and everyone will get 
>>used to the new post-Green status quo.
>>Stevan Harnad
>>At 02:43 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote:
>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>>><mailto:dwojick at craigellachie.us>On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:26 PM, David 
>>>Wojick <<mailto:dwojick at craigellachie.us>dwojick at craigellachie.us > wrote:
>>>As I understand it your position is that all published articles should 
>>>be immediately available for free. My question is why then anyone would 
>>>subscribe to a journal? I am sure you have an answer but I have no idea 
>>>what it is, as your proposal seems to defy the basic laws of economics. 
>>>Immediate deposit seems to be self defeating. What have I missed?
>>>Here's what you have missed:
>>>Harnad, Stevan (2007) <http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/265753/>The Green Road 
>>>to Open Access: A Leveraged Transition. In, Anna, Gacs (ed.) The Culture 
>>>of Periodicals from the Perspective of the Electronic Age. , 
>>>L'Harmattan, 99-105.
>>>SUMMARY: What the research community needs, urgently, is free online 
>>>access (Open Access, OA) to its own peer-reviewed research output. 
>>>Researchers can provide that in two ways: by publishing their articles 
>>>in OA journals (Gold OA) or by continuing to publish in non-OA journals 
>>>and self-archiving their final peer-reviewed drafts in their own OA 
>>>Institutional Repositories (Green OA). OA self-archiving, once it is 
>>>mandated by research institutions and funders, can reliably generate 
>>>100% Green OA. Gold OA requires journals to convert to OA publishing 
>>>(which is not in the hands of the research community) and it also 
>>>requires the funds to cover the Gold OA publication costs. With 100% 
>>>Green OA, the research community's access and impact problems are 
>>>already solved. If and when 100% Green OA should cause significant 
>>>cancellation pressure (no one knows whether or when that will happen, 
>>>because OA Green grows anarchically, article by article, not journal by 
>>>journal) then the cancellation pressure will cause cost-cutting, 
>>>downsizing and eventually a leveraged transition to OA (Gold) publishing 
>>>on the part of journals. As subscription revenues shrink, institutional 
>>>windfall savings from cancellations grow. If and when journal 
>>>subscriptions become unsustainable, per-article publishing costs will be 
>>>low enough, and institutional savings will be high enough to cover them, 
>>>because publishing will have downsized to just peer-review service 
>>>provision alone, offloading text-generation onto authors and 
>>>access-provision and archiving onto the global network of OA 
>>>Institutional Repositories. Green OA will have leveraged a transition to 
>>>Gold OA.
>>>Harnad, Stevan (2010) 
>>><http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july10/harnad/07harnad.html>No-Fault Peer 
>>>Review Charges: The Price of Selectivity Need Not Be Access Denied or 
>>>Delayed. D-Lib Magazine, 16, (7/8)
>>>SUMMARY: Plans by universities and research funders to pay the costs of 
>>>Open Access Publishing ("Gold OA") are premature. Funds are short; 80% 
>>>of journals (including virtually all the top journals) are still 
>>>subscription-based, tying up the potential funds to pay for Gold OA; the 
>>>asking price for Gold OA is still high; and there is concern that paying 
>>>to publish may inflate acceptance rates and lower quality standards. 
>>>What is needed now is for universities and funders to mandate OA 
>>>self-archiving (of authors' final peer-reviewed drafts, immediately upon 
>>>acceptance for publication) ("Green OA"). That will provide immediate 
>>>OA; and if and when universal Green OA should go on to make 
>>>subscriptions unsustainable (because users are satisfied with just the 
>>>Green OA versions) that will in turn induce journals to cut costs (print 
>>>edition, online edition, access-provision, archiving), downsize to just 
>>>providing the service of peer review, and convert to the Gold OA 
>>>cost-recovery model; meanwhile, the subscription cancellations will have 
>>>released the funds to pay these residual service costs. The natural way 
>>>to charge for the service of peer review then will be on a "no-fault 
>>>basis," with the author's institution or funder paying for each round of 
>>>refereeing, regardless of outcome (acceptance, revision/re-refereeing, 
>>>or rejection). This will minimize cost while protecting against inflated 
>>>acceptance rates and decline in quality standards.
>>>At 01:50 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote:
>>>>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>>>><mailto:dwojick at craigellachie.us>On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:26 PM, David 
>>>>Wojick <<mailto:dwojick at craigellachie.us>dwojick at craigellachie.us > wrote:
>>>>The USA has the lead here, as far as major funder mandates are 
>>>>concerned, and they have opted for a 12 month publisher embargo form of 
>>>>green OA. I have several articles on this at
>>>>Peter does not even discuss what is actually happening on the policy front.
>>>On leads vs. lags and analysis vs argument, see:
>>>Dialogue on "CHORUS" with David Wojick, OSTI Consultant
>>>The exchange is preceded by the following note (by me):
>>>Note: <http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about/>David Wojick works part 
>>>time as the Senior Consultant for Innovation at 
>>><http://www.osti.gov/home/>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. In the exchanges below, he sounds 
>>>[to me] very much like a publishing interest lobbyist, but judge for 
>>>yourself. He also turns out to have a rather curious [and to me 
>>><http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_E._Wojick>history in 
>>>environmental matters

>>>The topic continued (and continues) to be discussed on the Society for 
>>>Scholarly Publishing's blog, 
>>>"<http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/about/>The Scholarly Kitchen," 
>>>where DW is a frequent contributor.
>>>DW: "Peter Suber is a leader of the OA movement. His article is an 
>>>argument, not an analysis. He seems to be oblivious to what is actually 
>>>going on
. Happy OA week."
>>>And a Happy OA week to DW too...
>>>Stevan Harnad
>>>At 12:50 PM 10/23/2013, you wrote:
>>>>Dear David,
>>>>Sorry, could you tell us why you have the opinion that the author of 
>>>>the Guardian piece is oblivious to what is going on? What, in you eyes, 
>>>>is the main thing he seems not aware of?
>>>>Thank you,
>>>>Jeroen Bosman
>>>>Jeroen Bosman, subject librarian Geography&Geoscience
>>>>Utrecht University Library
>>>><mailto:j.bosman at uu.nl>email: <mailto:j.bosman at uu.nl>j.bosman at uu.nl
>>>>twitter:@geolibrarianUBU / @jeroenbosman
>>>>P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics 
>>>>On Behalf Of David Wojick
>>>>Sent: woensdag 23 oktober 2013 18:24
>>>>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] OA
>>>>Peter Suber is a leader of the OA movement. His article is an argument, 
>>>>not an analysis. He seems to be oblivious to what is actually going on.
>>>>Happy OA week.
>>>>David Wojick
>>>>At 02:20 PM 10/22/2013, you wrote:
>>>> >Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>>>> ><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html> 
>>>> <http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 
>>>> >
>>>> >I post this without comment.
>>>> >
>>>> ><http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/ 
>>>> op> 
>>>> <http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op>http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2013/oct/21/op 
>>>> >en-access-myths-peter-suber-harvard
>>>> >
>>>> >But I would be interested to hear listmembers responses/reactions
>>>> >
>>>> >BW
>>>> >
>>>> >Quentin Burrell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20131024/0358ed49/attachment.html>

More information about the SIGMETRICS mailing list