CHORUS is a Trojan Horse

Stevan Harnad harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK
Fri Jul 11 21:44:10 EDT 2014

On Jul 11, 2014, at 9:41 PM, David Wojick <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US> wrote:

> Stevan,
> Why are you trying to move the discussion here from the Scholarly Kitchen? Few of their readers are members here. They are the scholarly communication community, not the metrics community. This is very strange. Moreover, TSK is an open forum while this is a closed one.

There has been plenty of discussion on this topic here, and it is pertinent for many readers.

Why don’t you just reply to the points I make? TSK is a highly partisan forum (see the predictable patterns of thumbs up and down). Here the matters get a more even-handed airing.

Stevan Harnad

> David Wojick
> On Jul 11, 2014, at 8:15 PM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
>> On Jul 11, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Stevan Harnad wrote:
>>>> SH: CHORUS is a Trojan Horse, designed so that publishers retain control over the timing, terms and territory of any transition to Open Access.  Think about it.
>> David Wojick replied (in the SSP Scholarly Kitchen):
>>> DW: Nonsense! It is the Feds that are asserting control via the US Public Access program.  CHORUS is an attempt to minimize the damage that more Federal repositories like PMC will cause. CHORUS will improve scientific communication while reducing 
>>> Federal expenses. It is an elegant solution to a difficult problem.
>> SH: The Feds are (rightly) asserting control over the research output that the public funds by mandating public access to it. Doesn’t sound like nonsense to me. (Some) publishers are trying to slow the provision of public access to publicly funded research (by embargoing it) and are angling to remain the ones who provide the access, so that they retain control and proprietorship over both the research output and the provision of access to it. That doesn’t sound like nonsense to me either — just self-interest in a profound conflict of interest 
>> between those who fund, conduct and provide the research output (the Feds, the public, and researchers) on the one hand, and those who manage the peer review of that research output (publishers). The peers (researchers) review for free. It is not nonsense to attempt to hold onto a cushy deal by “minimizing the damage” for as long as possible to the inflated income streams  to which they have long grown accustomed. The Feds, the public, and researchers can only hope  that this damage-limitation attempt will fail. And it will -- though perhaps not until after yet  another round of delay tactics, of which CHORUS and the lobbying for it are a prominent instance.
>> Stevan Harnad

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the SIGMETRICS mailing list