Re: American Physiological Society - Comments re. NIH

["James A. Robinson" <jim.robinson@stanford.edu>]

Proposal 
Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
X-edited-by: liblicen@pantheon.yale.edu
Date: Fri,  3 Dec 2004 11:26:37 EST
Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN
Precedence: bulk


>According to Professor Carroll, "The publishers acknowledge that NIH 
>has always had license to reproduce, publish and archive the research 
>results that it has paid for.  It is explicit; there is no question 
>about that."

I'm not clear on what "research results" entails -- does that mean that
this entire debate has never been valid, that the final manuscript has
always been a document the NIH could do with as it pleases?  Or does
it mean that the original manuscript as first submitted by the author
to the publisher, before the publisher has done any work on it, is the
copy the NIH may use?

Hasn't the publisher added value to the manuscript by putting it 
through their peer review and editorial process?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
James A. Robinson                       jim.robinson@stanford.edu
Stanford University HighWire Press      http://highwire.stanford.edu/
650-723-7294 (W) 650-725-9335 (F)