[GOAL] CHORUS: Yet Another Trojan Horse from the Publishing Industry
The OSTPhttp://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#q=ostp+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/lr=c2coff=1safe=activehl=entbm=blgtbas=0source=lntsa=Xei=vZCwUdSoINTB4APxwYDICwved=0CBsQpwUoAAbav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.bvm=bv.47534661,d.dmgfp=41411a1f1a5d3b02biw=1260bih=674 should on no account be taken in by the Trojan Horse that is being offered by the research publishing industry's CHORUShttp://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/06/scientific-publishers-offer-solu.html . CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open Access (OA) lobbyinghttp://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#lr=c2coff=1safe=activehl=entbm=blgsclient=psy-abq=(lobbying+OR+lobby)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Foq=(lobbying+OR+lobby)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Fgs_l=serp.3...14364.16642.0.17599.8.8.0.0.0.0.165.748.7j1.8.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.9T7OcUOL6gEpbx=1bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.fp=41411a1f1a5d3b02biw=1260bih=674 by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the PRISM coalitionhttp://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#lr=c2coff=1safe=activehl=entbm=blgsclient=psy-abq=(prism+OR+pitbull+OR+pit-bull)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Foq=(prism+OR+pitbull+OR+pit-bull)+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Fgs_l=serp.3...41865.56372.1.57067.38.30.8.0.0.0.129.2666.28j2.30.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.oY8Xj19aWIMpbx=1bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.fp=41411a1f1a5d3b02biw=1260bih=674 and the Research Works Acthttp://www.google.ca/search?hl=enlr=q=harnad%20OR%20Harnad%20OR%20archivangelism+blogurl:http://openaccess.eprints.org/ie=UTF-8tbm=blgtbs=qdr:mnum=100c2coff=1safe=active#lr=c2coff=1safe=activehl=entbm=blgsclient=psy-abq=%22research+works+act%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Foq=%22research+works+act%22+blogurl:http%3A%2F%2Fopenaccess.eprints.org%2Fgs_l=serp.3...15413.22277.0.23563.20.20.0.0.0.1.137.1792.17j3.20.0...0.0...1c.1.16.psy-ab.JkaNf1Hb3Ocpbx=1bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.fp=41411a1f1a5d3b02biw=1260bih=674 . 1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast RD industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that funds the research. 2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has opened up for research. 3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See ROARMAPhttp://roarmap.eprints.org/ . 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to research progress by imposing embargoes of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be immediate in the online era. 5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. 6. Moreover, the publisher lobby is attempting to do this under the pretext of saving precious research funds for research! 7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes. 8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. 9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. 10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. Let the OSTP not be taken in this time either. Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open accesshttp://cwis.usc.edu/hsc/nml/assets/AAHSL/Nature_PR%20Pit%20Bull%2007-0124.pdf. Nature 5 January 2007. Linked version of this posting: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-.html ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: CHORUS: Yet Another Trojan Horse from the Publishing Industry
Thank you, Stevan. Spot on! Jean-Claude Guédon Le jeudi 06 juin 2013 à 10:59 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit : The OSTP should on no account be taken in by the Trojan Horse that is being offered by the research publishing industry's CHORUS. CHORUS is just the latest successor organisation for self-serving anti-Open Access (OA) lobbying by the publishing industry. Previous incarnations have been the PRISM coalition and the Research Works Act. 1. It is by now evident to everyone that OA is inevitable, because it is optimal for research, researchers, research institutions, the vast RD industry, students, teachers, journalists and the tax-paying public that funds the research. 2. Research is funded by the public and conducted by researchers and their institutions for the sake of research progress, productivity and applications -- not in order to guarantee publishers' current revenue streams and modus operandi: Research publishing is a service industry and must adapt to the revolutionary new potential that the online era has opened up for research. 3. That is why both research funders (like NIH) and research institutions (like Harvard) -- in the US as well as in the rest of the world -- are increasingly mandating (requiring) OA: See ROARMAP. 4. Publishers are already trying to delay the potential benefits of OA to research progress by imposing embargoes of 6-12 months or more on research access that can and should be immediate in the online era. 5. The strategy of CHORUS is to try to take the power to provide OA out of the hands of researchers so that publishers gain control over both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA. 6. Moreover, the publisher lobby is attempting to do this under the pretext of saving precious research funds for research! 7. It is for researchers to provide OA, and for their funders and institutions to mandate and monitor OA provision by requiring deposit in their institutional repositories -- which already exist, for multiple purposes. 8. Depositing in repositories entails no extra research expense for research, just a few extra keystrokes, from researchers. 9. Institutional and subject repositories keep both the timetable and the insfrastructure for providing OA where it belongs: in the hands of the research community, in whose interests it is to provide OA. 10. The publishing industry's previous ploys -- PRISM and the Research Works Act -- were obviously self-serving Trojan Horses, promoting the publishing industry's interests disguised as the interests of research. Let the OSTP not be taken in this time either. Giles, J. (2007) PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access. Nature 5 January 2007. Linked version of this posting: http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1009-.html ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] ALA Panel: International Perspectives on OA and Scholarly
*Apologies for Cross Posting* Join us for a co-sponsored panel discussion at ALA Annual on International Perspectives on Open Access Scholarly Publishing Sponsored by LITA HoLT (Heads of Library Technology Interest Group) and the LITA International Relations Committee Title: International Perspectives on Open Access and Scholarly Publishing Description: Presenters from North America, South America, Europe, and Asia will discuss Open Access and scholarly publishing as librarians, scholars, and publishers. Exploring the Open Access (OA) models of Latin America to a publisher’s assessment of the economics of OA to understanding authors’ considerations for submitting works to and perceptions of OA journals, this program will cover an extensive array of Open Access issues from across the globe. When: Monday July 1, 2013, 8:30-10 a.m. Location: McCormick Place Convention Center, S402a Panelists: * Lars Bjørnshaugehttp://www.sparc.arl.org/about/staff/Bjrnshauge.shtml (Director SPARC Europe Managing Director, DOAJ) * Leila Fernandezhttp://www.library.yorku.ca/cms/librarians/leilaf/ (Science Librarian, York University, Toronto, Canada) * Dr. Caroline Suttonhttp://www.co-action.net/about/about1.php?sessid=02661871user=346351env=Opera (Publisher, Co-Action Publishing and Former President, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association) * Dr. Xiaolin Zhanghttp://www.las.ac.cn/zxl/ (Executive Director, National Science Library of Chinese Academy of Sciences) * Dr. http://lsi.asu.edu/people/gustavo-fischman-phd Gustavo Fischmanhttp://lsi.asu.edu/people/gustavo-fischman-phd (Professor, Division of Educational Leadership and Innovation, Arizona State University). Moderators: Meg Brown-Sica (Associate Director for Technology and Digital Initiatives, University of Colorado Denver), Evviva Weinraub (Director, Emerging Technologies Services, Oregon State University) and Jason Battles (Associate Dean of University Libraries, Library Technology Planning and Policy, University of Alabama) ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
