Emily Lehr Wallace, Open Access: Open Debate?GeoTimes, November 2004. Excerpt: "The idea of any American being able to access the results of research paid for with tax dollars is a compelling one, especially if the research is biomedical. There are key questions though that have not been answered, such as what problems would open access solve and what is the impact of implementing open access for citizens, scientists, publishers and the peer-review process? In answering these questions at a meeting of stakeholders in July, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, head of NIH, told the group that open access is necessary for NIH’s internal management of grants, is key to patient access and will help scientists who are currently being hindered because they cannot freely access each others' research. Members of Congress and their staff on Capitol Hill pointed to the soaring cost of journals as the problem, quickly followed with a nod to patient access. It is out of character for Congress to act so quickly on any issue." (PS: Publishers like to object that Congress and the NIH are rushing the plan through without adequate study. However, the objection is easily answered by remembering the studies and stake-holder meetings that have already taken place and the public comment period now ongoing.)
Posted by
Peter Suber at 11/03/2004 03:36:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
