[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: "Life After NIH"--additional data
- To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>, <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>, "AmSci Forum" <american-scientist-open-access-forum@amsci.org>
- Subject: RE: "Life After NIH"--additional data
- From: "David Goodman" <David.Goodman@liu.edu>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:32:02 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Ann has asked me to give a more detailed description of the non-OA portion on the NIH proposals. Their current policy can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-022.html It includes: "Additionally, the formatting of journal articles may vary significantly among publishers' websites. The Policy addresses this deficiency in that all articles in PMC, regardless of their original format, are converted into a single, explicit, and well-specified data format. This format is known as the NLM Journal Article Extensible Markup Language (XML) Document Type Definition (DTD). Further, as new needs arise, and as technology and applications change, there is a single, uniform base upon which to build." This means that the NIH intends to take the authors MS and recompose it using their own XML into their own version, for incorporation into PMC in a version that will neither be the author's nor the publisher's. It is not clear to me what they intend to do with submissions in final PDF, but judging from the above, they intend to recompose these as well. Their reasons for doing so are, and I quote from the same source: "NIH needs to compile these publications into a single archive in order to manage its research portfolio better and monitor its funding choices" also given in more extended form as "NIH believes that the NIH Public Access Policy will effectively advance its stated goals. By storing research publications from diverse sources in a searchable, electronic archive with a common format, PMC facilitates greater integration with related resources in other NLM databases such as DNA and protein sequences, protein structures, clinical trials, small molecules (PubChem), and taxonomy thus providing the opportunity to develop unprecedented scientific search and analysis capabilities for the benefit of science. One of the primary goals of PMC is the creation of a permanent, digital archive of journal literature, which by definition, means the full text must be deposited in PMC. This searchable archive will enable NIH program officials to manage their research portfolios more efficiently, monitor scientific productivity, and ultimately, help set research priorities. This strategy also will enable NIH to advance its goal of creating an end-to-end, paperless grants management process. Finally, it will make the publications of NIH-funded research more accessible to and searchable for the public, health care providers, educators, and scientists." Upon reading the above, I could only wonder if I were understanding it correctly. But public and private comments of those from the NIH and elsewhere confirm this reading. if I have nonetheless misunderstood, I am sure to be corrected. There is however reason to hope: the NIH policy has already changed radically several times in the last 8 months. 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 David Goodman Sent: Mon 4/18/2005 6:06 PM To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu; AmSci Forum Subject: RE: "Life After NIH" ... 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 dgoodman@liu.edu
- Prev by Date: Open Access and For-Pay Access (to the same IR materials)
- Next by Date: Comparing Institutional Membership to Per-Article Payment
- Previous by thread: Open Access and For-Pay Access (to the same IR materials)
- Next by thread: Announcement: Jan Velterop is leaving BioMed Central
- Index(es):