RE: Stanford Libraries Re. NIH Notice on Enhanced Public Access to NIH Research Information

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

Apparently Highwire has been influenced in its way of thinking by its long
association with its clients. This is probably inevitable for any such
situation, and I take it as a reason why universities should _not_ get
involved in the business of science publishing.  (I assume that this
posting reflects the view of Highwire, not Stanford University Library--if
not, or if there is now no distinction, then Stanford is the first example
directly supporting my suggestion..)
 
In a much more general sense: This message, like many messages on OA,
reflects the view that that "what my organization is doing (or is
advocating) is as good as can be done, and that therefore all other
proposals are wrong."  I shall refrain from citing examples, as the list
archives are replete with them, from every possible viewpoint-- all sure
they are right, and all incompatible.
 
One cannot solve such a situation with inaction or argumentation. One must
obtain better information, and I suggest that the exceptionally modest NIH
proposal is just such an appropriate experiment. It is proverbial that a
fair bargain is where each party thinks the other has the advantage. This
is just the situation here: most publishers seem to be quite sure they are
being disadvantaged by the NIH plan; most supporters of OA think NIH's
plan to be much weaker than one that would really meet the need.
 
I will raise only two specific points.
 
It has long been a puzzle why the societies publishing at Highwire, and
now Highwire, take a position of opposition to the NIH proposal when
almost all of them already offer as much or more. The different between 6
and e.g. 12 months is hardly critical, once the principle is accepted.
 
As Highwire is both excellent and successful, I cannot see why it should
want to make negative comparisons with respect to other publishers. It has
enough strong positive things to say on its own behalf. A public
comparison of the merits and demerits of specific publishers' models
cannot be fairly or convincingly done by one of the publishers involved,
regardless of the good intentions that I confidently attribute to Michael
Keller.
 
 
Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu