High Time To Start Getting Serious About Open Access

Fri May 30 09:37:50 EDT 2014

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:30 AM, David Wojick <dwojick at craigellachie.us>
wrote:

*Stevan, the well established fact that you do not like the US Public
> Access program and CHORUS is somewhat beside the point. *
>

This is not about my personal likes or dislikes, nor about yours, David. It
is about finding the optimal strategy for providing Open Access (OA) to
research as quickly and as widely as possible.

All open access advocates (including myself) agree that the US Public
Access policies are very timely and welcome.

What is not welcome is any attempt to slow down or constrain the growth of
open access by trying to keep both its provision and its timetable in the
hands of publishers, as CHORUS attempts to do, and as you are yourself are
promoting under the guise of providing "expert" information to the
policy-making community.

*I am tracking what is actually happening in the US, not what you wish
> would happen. There are about 20 federal agencies preparing to implement
> Public Access, representing perhaps $100 billion/year in funding (we really
> do no know how much leads to journal articles). To my knowledge none of
> them is going to do it your way.*
>

I am not sure why you persist in calling the policy of the European
Commission Horizon2020 OA Policy <http://roarmap.eprints.org/987/>,
the HEFCE/RCUK
OA Policy <http://roarmap.eprints.org/834/>, the Belgian FRS/FNRS OA Policy
<http://roarmap.eprints.org/850/>, etc. "*what [I, SH] wish would happen*."
That policy model is the one recommended by the SPARC and BOAI. I am only
one of its countless well-wishers.

Here are the relevant passages from the *BOAI Recommendations*
<http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai-10-recommendations>

*1. On policy*

1.1. *Every institution of higher education *should have a policy assuring
that peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly articles by faculty
members are deposited in the institution’s designated repository. (See
recommendation 3.1 on institutional repositories.)

• Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of
acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.
...

 • University policies should encourage but not require publication in OA
journals, and should help faculty understand the difference between
depositing in an OA repository and publishing in an OA journal.
…
• When publishers will not allow OA on the university’s preferred terms, we
recommend either of two courses. The policy may require dark or non-OA
deposit in the institutional repository until permission for OA can be
obtained. Or the policy may grant the institution a nonexclusive right to
make future faculty research articles OA through the institutional
repository (with or without the option for faculty to waive this grant of
rights for any given publication).
…

1.3. *Every research funding agency*, public or private, should have a
policy assuring that peer-reviewed versions of all future scholarly
articles reporting funded research are deposited in a suitable repository
and made OA as soon as practicable.

• Deposits should be made as early as possible, ideally at the time of
acceptance, and no later than the date of formal publication.
…
• If funder policies allow embargoes before new work becomes OA, the
embargoes should not exceed six months. Policies should allow no embargoes
at all for uncopyrightable work.
…

1.4. *All university and funder OA policies should require deposit in a
suitable OA repository between the date of acceptance and the date of
publication.* The metadata should be deposited as soon as it is available
and should be OA from the moment of deposit. The full-text should be made
OA as soon as the repository has permission to make it OA.

1.7. Publishers who do not provide OA should at least permit it through
their formal publishing agreements.

• Publishers should refrain from lobbying against governments acting in the
public interest, and refrain from lobbying against research institutions
acting in the interests of researchers and research. Publishers should
disavow lobbying campaigns carried out in their name by their professional
or trade associations against the public interest and the interests of
researchers and research.

• The minority of subscription-based publishers who do not yet allow
author-initiated green OA, without payment or embargo, should adopt the
majority position.

 *There are however some big bibliometric issues here. Linking articles to
> funding should provide for new forms of bibliometric assessment of agency
> and research program performance. At this point we do not even know which
> research funding programs are leading to journal articles, much less their
> impact. It is a whole new world to explore.*
>

Yes, OA will help greatly both in record-keeping and in research
assessment. But those are bonuses. The purpose of Open Access is Open
Access, not bibliometrics. Bibliometric speculations should certainly not
be allowed to retard or get in the way of OA, OA Policy, or OA Policy
implementation.

>
> *But getting accurate article funding data is turning out to be difficult,
> in part due to the incredible complexity of the Federal funding system. In
> the CHORUS pilot they found a high incidence of cases where the FundRef
> funder data did not match the article acknowledgement funder statements.
> Solving this funder data problem is now a major effort, one I am tracking
> closely. *
>

The solution is there and quite straightforward:

All authors have institutions -- either a university or a research
institution. Those institutions have a huge stake in ensuring that their
researchers comply with their funder requirements (and they already review
all grant applications). Institutions are hence the ones in the position to
monitor their own researchers' journal article output, ensure that the
funder (if any) is specified in the repository metadata for each published
article, and, most important of all, ensure that the deposit is done within
the required time-frame (see BOAI recommendation above).

Repository deposits are time-stamped. Researchers can even be asked to
deposit the journal's acceptance letter (in closed access) alongside the
final refereed draft, for record-keeping and compliance monitoring
purposes. The institution can thereby systematically monitor and ensure
timely compliance with funder (and institutional) deposit mandates. (The
repository software and the Copy Request Button can then handle any
allowable publisher embargo periods in a simple, straightforward way --via
the Button till the embargo elapses, and then the deposit automatically
becomes OA.)

*In fact to me the bibliometric issues are far more interesting than the OA
> issues. *
>

To you. But not to the access-denied users that the OA movement is all
about, and for...

>
> *The bibliometric community should be more heavily involved in the US
> Public Access program. The agency offices that are designing the various
> agency programs know very little about bibliometrics, because the have
> never dealt with journal articles before. They mostly process final
> research reports. Thus they are not thinking about how the funder data will
> be used for performance evaluation; rather their focus is on providing
> access, getting the articles in and out the door, as it were. *
>
> *I think performance evaluation is going to be a very big deal, because of
> the huge sums involved in Federal R&D.*
>

To repeat:  Yes, OA will help greatly both in record-keeping and in
research assessment. But those are bonuses. The purpose of Open Access is
Open Access, not bibliometrics. Bibliometric speculations should certainly
not be allowed to retard or get in the way of OA, OA Policy, or OA Policy
implementation.

*Stevan Harnad*

On May 28, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Stevan Harnad <harnad at ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
>
> Adminstrative info for SIGMETRICS (for example unsubscribe):
> http://web.utk.edu/~gwhitney/sigmetrics.html
> On May 28, 2014, at 11:00 AM, David Wojick < <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US>
> dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US> wrote:
>
> Actually it is just $10 per issue, Stevan (500 divided by 50), so pretty
> cheap.
>
>
> That’s not what the site says:
>
> <http://insidepublicaccess.com/issues.html#list%20of%20issues>
> http://insidepublicaccess.com/issues.html#list%20of%20issues:
>
> *Purchase single issue from list above
> <http://insidepublicaccess.com/issues.html#list%20of%20issues> -- $20.00  *
> *  <pixel.gif> *
>
> And while I am indeed just one individual, I pioneered the design of
> Federal regulatory
>
> programs like the US Public Access program.
>
>
> That the US has a Public Access program at all is a very good thing (and
> due mostly to the
> pioneering efforts of Heather Joseph, Peter Suber and Harold Varmus).
>
> But the design of tje US Public Access program so far is terrible, on
> every substantive point:
>
> Means of deposit
> Locus of deposit
> Timing of Deposit
> Embargo Policy
> Implementation
> Monitoring
>
> See
> <http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2014/03/engineer-tackles-regulatory-confusion.html>
> http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2014/03/engineer-tackles-regulatory-confusion.html
> .
>
> I even have a diagnostic system of 126 kinds of confusion in such
> programs, which is freely
>
> available at
> <http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/02/05/a-taxonomy-of-confusions/>
> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/02/05/a-taxonomy-of-confusions/ .
>
> For that matter I have 30 Scholarly Kitchen articles, most of which are
> about the US Public
>
> Access program, freely available at
> <http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/>
> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/,
>
> if people want to sample my expertise. But the research costs money so I
> have to use a
>
> subscription model. As the saying goes, somebody has to pay for the work.
>
>
> There is a good deal of open access research on Open Access and Open
> Access policies,
> by different researchers (Bjork/Laakso, Bollen, Gargouri, Giles, Houghton,
> Solomon, Swan,
> Thelwall), all of them doing it for research purposes and for open access,
> and not charging
> a penny. Much  of it appears in peer-reviewed journals (rather than the *Scholarly
> Kitchen*,
> and much of the research is based on empirical studies rather than “expert
> opinion.”
>
> Public Access is going to be a massive and complex program.
>
>
> It need not be. All funders and institutions need to do is to both adopt a
> convergent immediate-deposit
> mandate requiring immediate deposit of the refereed final draft in the
> researcher’s own institutional
> repository, immediately upon acceptance for publication (with the
> repository’s Request-Copy Button
> implemented for embargoed deposits) as a precondition for research
> funding, renewal, research
> assessment, and institutional performance review.
>
> Institutions will then monitor and ensure timely compliance, the Button
> will tide over research
> user needs during any allowable OA embargo period, and deposit metadata
> and links can be
> harvested by any central repository.
>
> That is neither massive nor complex: it’s local and tractable — and it’s
> already being successfully
> implemented in Europe, for example, in the UK and Belgium.
>
> *HEFCE/REF Adopts Optimal Complement to RCUK OA Mandate*
> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1103-HEFCEREF-Adopts-Optimal-Complement-to-RCUK-OA-Mandate.html>
>
>
> One can get the flavor of the emerging complexity from the new CHORUS
> Implementation Guide.
>
> See  <http://chorusaccess.org/chorus-publisher-implementation-guide/>
> http://chorusaccess.org/chorus-publisher-implementation-guide/. In fact I
> will analyze this Guide
>
> for confusions in this week's issue of Inside Public Access.
>
>
> Chorus is all by and for publishers. *It is best ignored completely by
> researchers, their institutions and *
> *their funders. *OA and OA policy are not about publishers. It is,
> blessedly, out of publisher hands, even
> if some publisher consultants would like to keep them there…
>
> *"CHORUS": Yet Another Trojan Horse from the Publishing Industry*
> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-CHORUS-Yet-Another-Trojan-Horse-from-the-Publishing-Industry.html>
>
> *Potential CHORUS catastrophe for OA: How to fend it off*
> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1024-Potential-CHORUS-catastrophe-for-OA-How-to-fend-it-off.html>
>
> *Revealing Dialogue on "CHORUS" with David Wojick, OSTI Consultant*
> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1027-Revealing-Dialogue-on-CHORUS-with-David-Wojick,-OSTI-Consultant.html>
>
> *First Things First
> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1018-First-Things-First.html>*
>
>
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> David Wojick, Ph.D.
> Inside Public Access
>  <http://insidepublicaccess.com/>http://insidepublicaccess.com/
>
> At 11:20 AM 5/28/2014, you wrote:
>
> On May 28, 2014, at 6:33 AM, David Wojick < <dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US>
> dwojick at CRAIGELLACHIE.US > wrote:
>
> I have been getting serious about open access. Specifically I have started
> a weekly
> subscription newsletter called "Inside Public Access" (see
> <http://insidepublicaccess.com/>http://insidepublicaccess.com/).
> We are tracking the emerging US Public Access program, which should be a
> major influence
> on worldwide open access policies. In any case it is a massive and complex
> program in
> it's own right. Our rates are quite reasonable as these things go. We just
> published our eighth
> weekly issue and our backlist is included with new subscriptions.
> Individual issues are also available.
>
> Interesting times,
> David Wojick, Ph.D.
> Inside Public Access
>  <http://insidepublicaccess.com/>http://insidepublicaccess.com/
>
>
> Wow, is that ever the opposite of what I said, and meant, which was about
> getting serious,
> not getting rich!
>
> $500 per year or $20 per issue to read what one
> <http://insidepublicaccess.com/issues.html> individual
> <http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/author/dwojick/> has to say about
> open access...
>
> Let’s hope that the emerging US Public Access program will be “tracked” —
> and its policy shaped — by
> knowledgeable representatives of the research community, motivated to
> facilitate and accelerate OA growth,
> rather than by “ policy consultants
> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?serendipity%5Baction%5D=search&serendipity%5BsearchTerm%5D=wojick&serendipity%5BsearchButton%5D=%3E>”
> motivated to constrain and retard it.
>
> Caveat Emptor
>
> On May 28, 2014, at 1:40 AM, Stevan Harnad < <amsciforum at GMAIL.COM>
> amsciforum at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> * Video interview of Stevan Harnad
> <http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1113-.html>* by Maciej
> Chojnowski (CeON) prior to Invited
> Keynote on "How to Formulate Effective Policies to Open Access to Research
> Worldwide". Conference on *Opening Science to Meet Future Challenges*
> <https://conference2014.ceon.pl/conference/program/>. Centre
> for Open Science, part of the Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and
> Computational Modelling at the University of Warsaw, 11 March 2014
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.asis.org/pipermail/sigmetrics/attachments/20140530/a0e0844f/attachment.html>