[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "Life After NIH"
- To: <email@example.com>, "AmSci Forum" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: "Life After NIH"
- From: "David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:06:42 EDT
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Stevan, Demand from users will cause improvements in the policy, and it would be rational for organizations such as SPARC to encourage it. There is no reason not to support such work, while of course continuing other approaches. The NIH, in its effort to avoid offending any of the parties involved, has not only proposed a policy for OA so weak that it is drastic need of such improvements, but also encumbered the OA policy with a multitude of additional programs. They were probably introduced so the NIH could say that administering grants is the reason for their policy, not OA. The NIH need to do two things: 1) mandate OA for the sake of OA--the reason for the existence NIH is the production and dissemination of scientific information, not support of the publishing industry. 2) introduce and justify their other proposals separately. There is no reason to discuss them or their merits here, as they have nothing to do with OA. Dr. David Goodman Associate Professor, Palmer School of Library and Information Science Long Island University, Brookville, NY email@example.com -----Original Message----- From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 3:31 PM To: AmSci Forum Subject: "Life After NIH" 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 [SNIP] Stevan Harnad