Re: A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy

[Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

            ** Apologies for Cross-Posting **

In Open Access News
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2006_02_12_fosblogarchive.html#114023402623824134

Peter Suber describes a "New Elsevier policy on NIH-funded 
authors" which informs Elsevier authors:

     "Elsevier will submit to PubMed Central on your behalf a version of
     your manuscript that will include peer-review comments, for public
     access posting 12 months after the final publication date. This will
     ensure that you will have responded fully to the NIH request policy.
     There will be no need for you to post your manuscript directly
     to PubMed Central, and any such posting is prohibited (although
     Elsevier will not request that manuscripts authored and posted by
     US government employees should be taken down from PubMed Central)."

Peter criticizes this Elsevier policy, but I think it is the NIH 
policy, not the Elsevier policy, that needs the criticism (and 
correction).

Elsevier's author self-archiving policy is as constructive and 
progressive as anyone could wish, and perfectly sufficient for 
100% OA:

     "You can post your version of your article on your personal web page
     or the web site of your institution, provided that you include a
     link to the journal's home page or the article's DOI and include a
     complete citation for the article. This means that you can update
     your version (e.g. the Word or Tex form) to reflect changes made
     during the peer review and editing process."
     http://authors.elsevier.com/getting_published.html?dc=CI#internet

It is NIH that has been persistently and needlessly foolish, 
despite being fully forewarned. NIH has pointlessly insisted that 
the deposit must be in a 3rd-party central repository, PubMed 
Central (PMC), instead of the author's own institutional 
repository (from which PMC could easily harvest the metadata, 
linking to the full-text of the article). As a result, NIH has 
gotten itself stuck with a 12-month embargo as well as an 
interdiction against depositing directly in PMC.

And besides insisting that (1) the deposit *must* be in PMC, NIH 
has not even put any muscle behind its "must" -- merely (2) 
requesting, rather than requiring, that its authors deposit -- 
and (3) deposit within 12 months, not immediately upon acceptance 
for publication.

Hence the NIH policy has virtually invited an embargo upon itself 
-- and for no reason whatsoever, as all the benefits of 100% OA 
can be had without (1) - (3) by simply *requiring* immediate 
deposit in the author's own IR (and simply harvesting and linking 
from PMC).

One can only hope that NIH will follow lead of the UK Select 
Committee, RCUK and Berlin-3, and get it right the next time. 
(Note that a mandate is not enough: It must be a mandate for 
*immediate deposit*, and deposit in the author's *own institional 
repository*.)

     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/UKSTC.htm
     http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/index.asp
     http://www.eprints.org/berlin3/outcomes.html
     http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/sign.php
     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/stronger-OApolicy.htm

     Pertinent Prior AmSci Topic Threads:

"Elsevier Science Policy on Public Web Archiving Needs 
Re-Thinking" (Sep 1998) 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0137.html

"Elsevier Gives Authors Green Light for Open Access 
Self-Archiving" (May 2004) 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3771.html

"A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy" (Oct 
2004) 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4092.html 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4600.html

"Please Don't Copy-Cat Clone NIH-12 Non-OA Policy!" (Jan 2005) 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4308.html

"Open Access vs. NIH Back Access and Nature's Back-Sliding" (Jan 
2005) 
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4313.html

Stevan Harnad

American Scientist Open Access Forum
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html