Re: DC Principles Coalition Issues Press Release

[Peter Banks <pbanks@bankspub.com>]

If Lynch's definition was what was generally meant by a 
repository, I don't think there would be any controversy. I doubt 
the publishers would object to making available materials within 
a defined organization or closed community.

99% of time repositories are mentioned, however, they refer to 
sites for open access for users beyond the boundaries of the 
community or organization. If we could get back to a point that 
is truer to Lynch's original definition, then the problem would 
be half solved.

However, I doubt that Dr. Harnad and others who wish to achieve 
OA through author deposited manuscripts and repositories would 
accept the more limited definition of repository. That train has 
already left the station, it seems.

Peter Banks
Banks Publishing
Publications Consulting and Services
Fairfax, VA 22030
pbanks@bankspub.com
www.bankspub.com
www.associationpublisher.com/blog/

On 2/23/07 12:21 PM, "Klein, Bonnie CIV DTIC O" <BKlein@DTIC.MIL> wrote:

> Heather Morrison is correct that the FRPAA is a mandate for the 
> recipients of government support. It directs government funding 
> agencies to exercise the government's existing data rights and 
> license agreements under the intellectual property clauses in 
> contracts and grants (FAR/DFARS/CFR) and under operation of law 
> for government works (Title 17 USC Sec 105).
>
> A further comment on the press release statement... "By 
> establishing government repositories for federally funded 
> research, taxpayers would be paying for systems that duplicate 
> the online archives already maintained by independent 
> publishers,"
>
> By definition (attributed to Clifford Lynch), a repository is 
> not a publisher or an archive.  "A repository is a set of 
> services that a scientific/scholarly institution offers for the 
> management and dissemination of materials created by that 
> institution and its community members. It is most essentially 
> an organizational commitment to the stewardship of these 
> materials, including long-term preservation where appropriate, 
> as well as organization and access or distribution."
>
> Of the 11 federal agencies with R&D budgets of $100million+, 
> all but two already have existing STI repositories and operate 
> as national information centers for secondary distribution. 
> These collections contain data that is produced by or for their 
> agencies funded with government appropriations or provided to 
> the government under agreements.  For examples, see 
> www.science.gov which only includes a fraction of government 
> STI collectors and providers.
>
> Bonnie Klein
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Frank
> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:58 PM
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: DC Principles Coalition Issues Press Release
>
> The following press release was posted to the DC Principles website at
> http://www.dcprinciples.org/press/2.htm.
>
> *******
>
> Nonprofit Publishers Oppose Government Mandates for Scientific
> Publishing
>
> Washington, DC (February 20, 2007) A coalition of 75 nonprofit 
> publishers opposes any legislation that would abruptly end a 
> publishing system that has nurtured independent scientific 
> inquiry for generations. One such measure, the Federal Research 
> Public Access Act introduced in the 109th Congress would have 
> required all federally funded research to be deposited in an 
> accessible database within six months of acceptance in a 
> scientific journal.  Some open access advocates are pressing 
> for the introduction of a similar measure in the 110th 
> Congress.
>
> In essence, such legislation would impose government-mandated 
> access policies and government-controlled repositories for 
> federally funded research published in scientific journals, 
> according to members of the Washington DC Principles for Free 
> Access to Science Coalition.

####