Re: OA benefits associations & is easy too

["Peter Banks" <pbanks@diabetes.org>]

Heather,

I certainly don't need to respond for AACR, except to say that, as a
former cancer patient, I am thankful they are not following your advice.

You make the astounding and unsubstantiated assumption that the single
most important thing that AACR could do is to provide research findings on
an open access basis. In your view, this is such a high priority that it
is worth potentially weakening peer review and reducing any net income
that AACR uses to support research, advocacy and education.

So, rather than advocating on behalf of cancer patients or supporting
research, AACR should throw caution to the wind so that patients can read
articles such as "8-Oxoguanine Formation Induced by Chronic UVB Exposure
Makes Ogg1 Knockout Mice Susceptible to Skin Carcinogenesis," in the
current issue of Cancer Research?

Of far greater interest and importance to me are services such as ACCR's
support and advocacy for cancer patients
("http://www.aacr.org/page3882.aspx";)

Here's my rant for the day (as if this wasn't one already): I am tired of
OA advocates and the reporters who follow them claiming that patients are
clamoring for access to original biomedical research. Some--such as the
families Sharon Terry represent--clearly are, and rightly so. But many
more, such as those represented by the country's larger voluntary health
assocaitions, are looking for a range of services: advocacy,
patient-oriented educational materials, research for a cure, networking,
and simple support.

ADA represents almost half a million people. I have yet to hear some a
single patient that what they truly want is to read the journal Diabetes.
(A low-fat, sugar-free cookie recipe, now that would be news!)

It is not helpful to lecture voluntary health associations about what they
should do, particularly with so little awareness of what the patients they
serve truly need or want.

Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
1701 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311
703/299-2033
FAX 703/683-2890
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> heatherm@eln.bc.ca 07/18/05 4:51 PM >>>

The following combines responses to Joe Esposito's theme that OA will hurt
publishers, and Peter Banks' assertion that the NIH policy adds work for
researchers.

Open Access and the Traditional Publisher

The most traditional publishers are the ones that form part of scholarly
or professional associations.  Each such organization is set up for a
reason, and has a mission.  Publishing, in this context, is one of the
activities designed to fulfill the mission of the organization.  When a
new manner of publishing appears which greatly facilitates the
organization's mission - as open access does - then changing the manner of
publication facilitates the accomplishment of the organization's misson.

As one example, let's look at the American Association of Cancer Research
(AACR).  The banner at the top of their website does not say anything
about private-sector publishing.  It says, rather, "Saving Lives Through
Research".  Their mission statement talks about accelerating research.
Open Access is completely consistent with their mission.  For details on
why I think the AACR needs to brush the dust off their mission statement
and rethink their stance on open access, see my post, "In Lieu of Flowers:
An Open Letter to the American Association of Cancer Research"", in the
SPARC Open Access Forum, at:
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/2117.html 

On the NIH policy, my suggestion is that the complexity and extra work
arises for researchers because of publisher policies, not the NIH's Public
Access Policy. A researcher may be asked to add a warning, may be required
(by the publisher, not NIH) to impose a delay, the publisher may want to
post to their own web site, not NIH's, etc., etc.

Here is a simple solution:  require, not request, that all NIH researchers
deposit their work, immediately on completion of the research and
peer-review process, in PubMedCentral. It should be possible to automate
this process, for greatest simplicity for author and NIH alike.  Rather
than flexibility to accomodate publisher worries, the NIH should focus on
developing simple, clear policies and procedures, for the results of
research it funds.

a personal view by,

Heather G. Morrison