[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: STM comments on U. S. National Institutes of Health Unfunded Mandate

STM is letting itself down and, much more devastatingly, is 
letting down its member organisations by refusing to 
constructively engage in dialogue about a reform of the 
publishing system.

To call the NIH mandate 'unfunded' is merely to shout for direct 
public subsidy to an unsustainable business model, something I 
predicted STM would be doing, on reading the 2007 *Brussels 
Declaration on STM publishing* on the eve of the conference 
*Scientific Publishing in the European Research Area - Access, 
Dissemination and Preservation in the Digital Age* 

"Indeed, it might well be that non-reforming publishers will be 
running for political cover very soon by demanding subsidies to 
preserve their outdated business models and technology."

The NIH mandate, which will give the public open access, 
worldwide, may be had for a few hundred thousand dollars. I have 
reported on the difference between the average first-copy cost of 
an article as estimated by guild publishers (USD 5 or less) as 
compared to what STM publishers believe they need (USD 3000 and 
more). If NIH funded research results in roughly 65,000 articles 
per year, then their OA deposit may be had at USD 325,000 or 

What STM needs to do, is to quit moaning about 'unfunded' 
mandates and start helping its member organisations understand 
the real challenges of internet publishing, including the 
inadvertent drive towards open access.

Chris Armbruster

Rapporteur for Academic Publishing in Europe 2007 and 2008 - 
under the Auspices of the EU Research Directorate-General

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Janice Kuta
Sent: Sat 05/01/2008 03:45
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: STM comments on U. S. National Institutes of Health Unfunded Mandate


STM comments on U. S. National Institutes of Health Unfunded Mandate

OXFORD, UK, 4 JANUARY 2008 - STM today expressed disappointment 
with the recent passage of legislation in the United States. This 
legislation (the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 (H.R. 
2764)) includes provisions directing the National Institutes of 
Health to mandate that investigators who are supported by grants 
from the National Institutes of Health must deposit their 
manuscripts directly into the National Library of Medicine's 
PubMed Central database no later than 12 months after the 
official date of publication.

The legislation neither provides compensation for the added-value 
of services that these manuscripts have received from publishers 
nor does it earmark funds to ensure the economic sustainability 
of the broad and systematic archiving this sort of project 
requires. It also undermines a key intellectual property right 
known as copyright - long a cornerstone used to foster creativity 
and innovation.

STM believes that this legislation establishes an unfunded 
government mandate with an unknown impact on the advancement of 
science and puts at risk a system which has enabled more research 
to be available to more scientists in more countries than at any 
point in the history of science.