RE: NIH & Recommendations as of 1/12/05

["David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>]

If it is only a request, I do not see that it matters what number of
months that is requested -- the NIH could request 1, or it could requesr
6, 12, 36, or whatever. The publisher could follow the request or ignore
it, and release the articles at whatever time it pleased, including
infinity.

It matters only if it is a requirement. Then it is worth considering
whether there is an optimal time, or only a poltical compromise--and if
so, to get the best compromise we can.

Discussing it as a "request" is, however, compatible in spirit with the
American Physiological Society freely releasing the full articles at 12
months and objecting to be required to do so.

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman@liu.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Ann Okerson
Sent: Mon 1/17/2005 10:42 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: NIH & Recommendations as of 1/12/05
 
Of possible interest, as reported in: The Scientist, 1/13/2005

The existing draft policy requests but does not require investigators
whose research was supported in whole or in part by NIH to deposit the
final, peer-reviewed manuscript with the National Library of Medicine's
PubMed Central after it has been accepted for publication. NIH would
embargo the manuscript from release for 6 months after the publisher's
date of publication. Extending this time frame to 12 months, however,
would make the policy coincide with the practice of many scientific
associations.

####