CHORUS is a Trojan Horse

[David Wojick]

Dear Christina,

It is true that many agencies publish their final reports. DOE OSTI is 
arguably the world's largest grey literature publisher/aggregator. But I am 
not aware of any of the agencies you list running a repository for journal 
articles, which is what I refer to as scholarly publishing. Perhaps I have 
missed them. Can you point to one? It is a very complex process, as PMC shows.

David

At 09:59 AM 7/14/2014, you wrote:
>1)      Thank you for moving this to the listserv as I refuse to give 
>click traffic to the other site
>2)      Perhaps lobbying is not the correct term, but organizations with 
>money have many ways to work to influence executive branch agencies. The 
>explicit way is to comment on proposed rules (I think this is the 
>preferred place, now: 
><http://www.regulations.gov/#!home>http://www.regulations.gov/#!home), but 
>there are many ways prior to that.
>3)      Federal agencies do indeed know a lot about publishing. At least 
>EPA, DTIC, Education, FDA, DOJ, DOT, and others that I have had contact 
>with do. I have heard some pushback in DoD about the burden enforcing 
>compliance will be for funders. But as a veteran, I can tell you that if 
>military folks (including DoD civilians and contractors) are not 
>complaining about something, then they’re probably ignoring it! It could 
>be that the correct, knowledgeable people in various parts of massive 
>departments are not the most vocal.
>
>Christina
>
>Any statements here are my own and do not reflect anything from my 
>employer. Actually they’re mostly based on my experience as active duty 
>Navy and as an EPA contractor.
>
>From: ASIS&T Special Interest Group on Metrics 
>[mailto:SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu] On Behalf Of David Wojick
>Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 10:09 AM
>To: SIGMETRICS at listserv.utk.edu
>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CHORUS is a Trojan Horse
>
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 
>
>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 
><<mailto:dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US>dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US> wrote:
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>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 
><<mailto:amsciforum at GMAIL.COM>amsciforum at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
><http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html>http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html 
>
>On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:14 AM, David Wojick 
><<mailto:dwojick at craigellachie.us>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 <http://www.desmogblog.com/david-wojick>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 <htttp://roarmap.eprints.org>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/20140714/fe764584/attachment.html>