CHORUS is a Trojan Horse

[David Wojick]

Sorry that is does not DOE's. My IPad keeps changing it.

Ironically my biggest complaint is that the Feds have not consulted with the publishers in designing the PA system. The Feds know little about scholarly publishing, except NIH of course.

David

Sent from my IPad

On Jul 12, 2014, at 9:26 AM, David Wojick <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US> wrote:

> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> One DOE's not lobby Executive agencies.
> The embargo periods will be set by the Feds. 
> It is better to send users to the publisher's website than to a federal repository of accepted manuscripts, also cheaper.
> 
> David
> 
> Sent from my IPad
> 
> On Jul 12, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Stevan Harnad <amsciforum at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
>> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
>> On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:14 AM, David Wojick <dwojick at craigellachie.us> wrote:
>>  
>> DW: The timing, terms and territory of the U.S. Public Access program are all controlled by the Feds.
>> 
>> "The Feds," as we all know, are government decision-makers whose decisions are influenced by lobbying. The research community, though it is huge, cannot afford -- and hence does not have -- a lobby. The publishing industry, in contrast, has oodles of dosh for lobbying "The Feds," and does so, vigorously, particularly about Open Access (OA), over which the publishing industry is desperately trying to retain control. 
>> 
>> In the US, this attempt to retain control takes the form of CHORUS: "Let us handle OA for you; we will see to it that (our) articles are made OA at the end of (our!) OA embargoes; we will host or deposit our versions of our articles for you."
>> 
>> That is how the publishing lobby is trying to retain control over the timing, terms and territory of the US Public Access program.
>>  
>> DW: To claim otherwise is nonsense.
>> 
>> (I imagine that when you are lobbying or consulting for the Feds you express yourself more courteously, David.)
>>  
>> DW: The publishers have no control whatsoever. Which federal agencies, if any, will use CHORUS is completely up to those agencies.
>> 
>>  The publishers have no control over what policy "the Feds" ultimately adopt, fortunately. They are merely trying to lobby to get them to cede the control to them, by adopting CHORUS. 
>> 
>> And you, David, as a consultant for OSTI, are attempting to incline them toward adopting CHORUS. In this, I think you are as profoundly mistaken as you have been in your prior advocacy against measures to combat global warming.
>> 
>> DW: If it is not going your way that is the choice of the Feds, not the publishers.
>> 
>> I am not a professional consultant or lobbyist. I am a researcher, and "my way" is what I think is best for research, researchers, their institutions, their funders, and the general public whose taxes pay for the research and for whose benefit the research is conducted.
>> 
>> And mandatory Green Open Access Self-Archiving is not "my way" but the way of 271 institutions and 90 Funders. It is one of those funders (OSTI) that you are endeavouring to steer toward CHORUS. I and others are trying to alert all OA policy-makers to the fact that CHORUS is a Trojan Horse and very much against the interests of the scale and speed of growth of Open Access.
>> 
>> Stevan Harnad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20140712/13f81775/attachment.html>