[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: NEJM editorial on open access
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>, <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: RE: NEJM editorial on open access
- From: "David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:04:19 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Dear Bernie, I am puzzled. I have just re-read the NIH proposal which provoked Dr. Drazen's editorial, and I cannot see in the proposal any requirement that the rightsholder, whether author or journal, be required to transfer copyright, either to the NIH or the public. The purposes of the measure would appear to be fully served by the grant of a license to the NIH to post the author's version of the article, (or the publisher's version, if the rightsholder prefers) and allow access to it. Why then does an eminent biomedical editor express concern over this? Since, as Dr. Drazen himself writes, "The NIH proposal is silent on the issue of copyright," it is difficult to see the problem. The editorial appears most concerned over the possible inappropriate commercial use that might be made of the articles in NEJM. This is a valid concern. Since the NEJM need not license the rights to commercial use to the material the concern is satisfied. Similarly, the NEJM would, unless it transfers them, retain rights to all other subsidiary uses: it would retain the sole right to translate the journal into Spanish, if it chose to; it would retain the sole right to make a television show out of one of the articles if it chose to; more realistically, it would retain the sole right to publish an edition assisting the non-physician to understand the research and the issues, if it chose to. (I have in mind the parallel editions of the Merck Manual) I therefore assume that the editorial is asking that there be specific language to ensure that the rightsholder need not transfer these rights. I see no apparent intent to require it to do so. Thus, this is an effort to prevent a problem that does not actually exist. The NEJM can safely continue its magnificent tradition of protecting and improving the integrity and accuracy of medical journals. There are sufficient real problems with the dissemination of biomedical information, without adding imaginary ones. Dr. David Goodman dgoodman@liu.edu Note: the NIH proposal is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html Dr.Drazen's ditorial is available free in full text at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/13/1343
- Prev by Date: Re: NEJM editorial on open access
- Next by Date: Re: Implications of Google's recent announcement
- Previous by thread: Re: NEJM editorial on open access
- Next by thread: RE: NEJM editorial on open access
- Index(es):