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

["Hamaker, Charles" <cahamake@uncc.edu>]

Peter Suber reports:

"The NIH is the largest funder of non-classified scientific 
research in the world, with a budget ($28 billion in fiscal 2007) 
larger than the GDP of 140 nations.  Its research results in 
65,000 peer-reviewed journal articles every year or about 180 per 
day. "

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/08-02-07.htm

Chuck Hamaker
Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical Services
Atkins Library
University of North Carolina Charlotte
Charlotte, NC 28223

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Frank
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:46 AM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Funding threshold (RE: LA Times editorial on accessing NIH
research)

Rick,

According to NIH, their Public Access Policy applies "to
peer-reviewed, original research publications that have been
supported in whole or in part with direct costs from NIH."  The
legislation does not change the requirement.  The policy applies
whether or not the author is presently funded by NIH, meaning
that an individual with a terminated grant who is writing up
their work to try and get funded will be subject to the policy.
Similarly, an individual supported by a Foundation or
pharmaceutical company, but using a piece of equipment purchased
on an NIH grant will also be subject to the policy because the
equipment would be considered under the "in part" provision of
the policy.

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.  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.

Making 10% of the literature (which is all that is supported by
NIH) available through PubMed Central will do absolutely nothing
to advance the science of discovery!  Most investigators
worldwide already get access to the literature without the
expenditure of millions by NIH. Additionally, one of the
justifications for the program has been the desire for Congress
to provide the US taxpayers with access to the research funded
with their tax dollars.  If that is the case, who cares if
"opening up access to NIH-funded studies will increase their
impact on researchers around the world."

Martin Frank, Ph.D.
Executive Director, American Physiological Society
E-mail: mfrank@the-aps.org
APS Home Page: www.the-aps.org
... Integrating the Life Sciences From Molecule to Organism


-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:48 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Funding threshold (RE: LA Times editorial on accessing NIH
research)

Does the latest legislative proposal specify what level of
funding would trigger the OA requirement?  Would it only apply in
situations where the research was 100% funded by the NIH, or
would it apply to research publications funded by that body at
something less than 100%?  And if so, what is the threshold
funding level?

Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
rickand@unr.edu