RE: Funding threshold (RE: LA Times editorial on accessing NIH research)

["William Walsh" <libwdw@langate.gsu.edu>]

>>> On 8/2/2007 at 9:45 AM, "Martin Frank" <MFrank@The-APS.org> wrote:
> It is nice to see Congress encouraging NIH to expend scare 
> dollars to duplicate what many publishers are already doing, 
> making their content freely available within 12 months of 
> publication.

In a response to Willinsky's The Access Principle in the April 
13, 2006 issue of NEJM ("Access to the Scientific Literature--A 
Difficult Balance"), you wrote, "The ready availability of 
content on PubMed Central could lead to subscription 
cancellations and accelerate the transition to an author-pays 
publishing model..."

Has making content freely available within 12 months led to 
significant cancellations?

> Congress could advance science if the funds were actually being 
> used for research.  The argument that the cost is only a couple 
> of million dollars is immaterial when the expenditure is 
> unnecessary and one is dying of a disease that could be cured 
> by using the dollars for research.

The "Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications 
Resulting from NIH-Funded Research" states:

"The NIH supports the current publishing process by providing its 
funded investigators with an estimated $30 million annually in 
direct costs for publication expenses, including page and color 
charges and reprints. In addition, NIH provides funds, through 
indirect costs, to research institutions for library journal 
subscriptions and electronic site licenses."

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-022.html

You'll agree these funds would be better used for research?


William Walsh
Head, Acquisitions Department
Georgia State University Library
Atlanta, GA 30303
Email:  wwalsh@gsu.edu