CHORUS is a Trojan Horse

David Wojick dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US
Mon Jul 14 14:31:01 EDT 2014

Regarding influence, in my view OSTP should have created a public Federal 
Advisory Committee for the US Public Access program instead of proceeding 
in secret for 16 months and counting. The FAC would have members, and 
provide much needed expertise, from all sides. That is the standard federal 
procedure in cases like this. I attribute it to the agency library types 
having very little rule making experience.
See my

Christina, I am curious what you have against the Scholarly Kitchen? They 
do a pretty good job of airing competing viewpoints.


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: 
><!home>!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.
>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] On Behalf Of David Wojick
>Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 10:09 AM
>Subject: Re: [SIGMETRICS] CHORUS is a Trojan Horse
>Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe): 
>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.
>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): 
>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.
>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): 
>On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 7:14 AM, David Wojick 
><<mailto:dwojick at>dwojick at> 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 
>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://>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: <>

More information about the SIGMETRICS mailing list