[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"Life After NIH"
- To: AmSci Forum <email@example.com>
- Subject: "Life After NIH"
- From: Stevan Harnad <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 15:31:09 EDT
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Andrew R. Albanese "Life After NIH" (Library Journal, April 15 2005) http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA516022 In this article today about the NIH 6-12-month Back Access "Request" Policy, Albanese asks "After a flawed policy, what's next for librarians and open access?" "SPARC executive director Rick Johnson, one of the NIH proposal's most ardent supporters says... 'I see open access as a means to introduce market forces into a system that largely is devoid of them. Our task is to break this monopoly and at the same time enable a competitive, dynamic market for services that add value to research.'" I instead see open access as open access. I see our immediate task as reaching 100% open access, already well within reach, as soon as possible. I think we are already quite late. "Johnson says it is a mistake to take the current NIH policy at face value and that the public discussion SPARC has helped fuel will crystallize into success for open access. 'Without such a clear symbol of why we need open access, change on a broad scale would occur at a slower pace,' he says. 'I am convinced that Congress will not be satisfied with a de facto 12-month embargo, and I can't imagine the NIH will be either... The current [NIH] policy is not the end of the discussion... We'll soon know what percentages of eligible papers make their way into PubMed Central and the average delay in public availability. If the result does not respond to the wishes of Congress, then I expect NIH will make adjustments.'" I think our pace could not possibly be slower and that waiting several more years to weigh the "percentage of papers" and the "average delay" of NIH Back Access and then "make adjustments" is an extremely bad idea. There is an immediate alternative, which is to adopt and promote the more recent and optimal Berlin-3 Policy recommendation (formulated this month at an international meeting in Southampton UK) instead of the flawed NIH policy. http://www.eprints.org/berlin3/outcomes.html The two policies differ in 4 critical respects: NIH: self-archive up to 6-12 months after publication B-3: self-archive immediately upon publication NIH: self-archive only NIH-funded research B-3: self-archive all institutional research output NIH: self-archive in PubMed Central B-3: self-archive in researcher's own institutional archive NIH: request self-archiving B-3: require self-archiving There are already several hundred institutional archives worldwide, but most are near-empty, because most have not yet adopted a self-archiving policy. http://archives.eprints.org/eprints.php?page=all About a dozen of these institutions, however, *have* adopted a self-archiving policy, and some of the biggest of these (CNRS, INRIA, CERN) -- approaching a bigger total research output than NIH, and across all disciplines (not just biomedicine) -- adopted their policy this month, as a direct result of the Berlin-3 policy recommendation: http://www.eprints.org/signup/fulllist.php The world now has a clear choice: To wait and see the outcome of the NIH policy, and then perhaps "make adjustments," or to get it right the first time, by adopting Berlin-3 and providing Open Access now. Institutions adopting a self-archiving policy are invited to register and describe it, so as to encourage emulation by others, at: http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php Stevan Harnad
- Prev by Date: Drug Metabolism and Disposition Back Issues Available Online
- Next by Date: [no subject]
- Previous by thread: Drug Metabolism and Disposition Back Issues Available Online
- Next by thread: RE: "Life After NIH"