AAP Statement Regarding the NIH Policy

[Liblicense-L Listowner <liblicen@pantheon.yale.edu>]

Of possible interest.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Association of American Publishers
71 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003-3004
 
Tel (212) 255-0200
Fax: (212) 255-7007
www.publishers.org
www.pspcentral.org
______________________________

Statement of the Association of American Publishers/Professional and
Scholarly Publishing Division (AAP/PSP) Regarding the National Institutes
of Health's Public Access Policy March 2, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  
Contact: Barbara Meredith, VP, PSP Division (212) 255-0200 x223

Publishers agree with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that science
and society-at-large are best served by the widest possible dissemination
of published health and medical research.  Indeed, providing public access
is the central objective of the publishing enterprise.  More results of
health and medical research are available to more people than ever before.  
Much of it is already available to the public free of charge and that
proportion is increasing.

However, if the NIH's new public access initiative is to add real value
for researchers and patients, it must complement rather than compete with
or duplicate the significant advancements and substantial investments that
publishers have already made.  Tax dollars support research, the outcome
of which can be communicated in many ways, including conferences, books,
and scholarly journals.  Publishers invest millions of dollars to support
peer review, editing, abstracting, indexing, distribution, archiving,
searching, access, and innovation.  The NIH must avoid duplicating those
efforts - otherwise taxpayers will truly "pay twice" for redundant
versions of information or imitative platforms and tools.

We call upon the NIH to work closely with publishers in the rollout of its
public access policy.  As the NIH goes forward with its plan, it must be
careful to distinguish a professional and scholarly publishing environment
that consistently delivers excellence, integrity, and innovation from one
in which "free" access is subsidized through regulation.  NIH fostering
immediate free public access to content would risk undermining free market
investments and models that have proven essential to authors and
researchers.
 
We were encouraged that the NIH responded to some concerns of publishers
and the research community by incorporating both voluntary choice and
flexibility with respect to participation in the policy it promulgated on
February 3, 2005.  We will continue to work closely with our journal
editors, scholars and patient advocacy groups to ensure the best service
to authors and all potential readers.

We look forward to working with the NIH and others to monitor the
execution and impact of the new policy, and to contribute positively to
its development.  To that end, we ask the NIH to:

� Advance -- not undermine -- the scholarly value created by publishers,
and

� Ensure the NIH Public Access Advisory Working Group of the National
Library of Medicine Board of Regents is truly diverse, inclusive,
independent, and balances legitimate needs of researchers, authors, and
publishers along with those of other stakeholders.

####