Re: NEJM editorial on open access

["Anthony Watkinson" <anthony.watkinson@btopenworld.com>]

Dear Ann, The usual answer is that NIH is a leader and therefore more
important than just because it has a big role in funding - which it has.
Outside straight biomedical research, the whole situation is very much
more complex and the more clinical the literature gets the less
straightforward is the funding. Members of the list may like to look at
the second half of the presentation by Ian Rowlands at
www.stm-assoc.org/conferences/Rowlands.ppt.

Anthony

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ann Okerson" <aokerson@pantheon.yale.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 2:12 AM
Subject: RE: NEJM editorial on open access

> Two brief comments on John Sack's informative message:
>
> 1.  I had read the NEJM editorial in the same way, namely that the
> authors were asking for the option to link to NEJM's (or other
> publishers' sites) rather than necessarily posting articles to PubMed
> Central.  If that is a publisher's preference, what would be amiss in
> permitting it?  In fact, it would seem to be an easier solution...
>
> 2.  Re. NIH-funded research: Does anyone know what percentage of
> biomedical research in the US is funded through NIH?  I had thought it
> was a huge majority but it seems more accurate proportions would be
> between 20-30%.  Anyone out in liblicense-l land who can offer numbers
> with at least somewhat authoritative sources?
>
> Ann Okerson/Yale Library