Fwd: Critique of APS Critique of NIH Proposal

[Heather Morrison <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>]

greetings liblicensers,

**	Apologies for cross-posting	**

Thanks very much to Stevan for his detailed (and accurate) critique of  
this article.

In case anyone on this list has missed the news, since the Nov. 16
deadline, the U.S. government has reconfirmed their support for the NIH
plan, after listening to arguments from all sides, of course.  May I
suggest that perhaps U.S. legislators are likely to have some knowledge of
U.S. law?

Like Arun on the Am. Sci. open access forum, I find it difficult to
believe that learned bodies such as these would put forward such dubious
arguments.

One example:  the reference to the Paperwork Reduction Act.  A quick
glance at the Paperwork Reduction Act at
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/public_laws/
paperwork_reduction_act/3501.html makes it immediately obvious that the
NIH proposal is in complete synch with the goals of this act.  For
example, the 2nd purposes of the Act is to:  "ensure the greatest possible
public benefit from and maximize the utility of information created,
collected, maintained, used, shared and disseminated by or for the Federal
Government;".  It doesn't take much brainpower to realize that making NIH
research results openly accessible precisely fits the goals of this act.

I also find it difficult to believe that learned bodies such as these,
which are responsible for academic publishing, could publish such dubious
arguments.  If we accept that one of the key functions of academic
publishers is to ensure the integrity of academic publishing, how could
this article possibly have passed any kind of peer review or editorial
control process?  With reference to the Paperwork Reduction Act, for
example, how could a responsible editor or reviewer not have sent back
this article with a note that there is another interpretation (the NIH
proposal furthers the goals of this Act), which at the absolute minimum,
must be presented, even if the author intends to refute it?

cheers,

Heather Morrison