Open Access NewsNews from the open access movement Jump to navigation |
|||
More on publisher resistance to OA at the NIH Andrew Albanese, Congress Backs NIH Access Policy, But Publishers Resist, Library Journal, July 23, 2007.
Comment. To be more precise, a lawsuit would delay implementation even if copyright law would not. And delay would be the sole purpose of a lawsuit. There’s no doubt that an OA mandate at the NIH could be implemented “in a matter consistent with copyright law”. There are many ways to do it. For example, the NIH could use the fact that the OA editions will not be the published editions on which authors transfer copyright but merely the final versions of the authors’ peer-reviewed manuscripts. Or the NIH could use the the existing government-purpose license to distribute the results of publicly-funded research. Or the NIH could make the OA condition an explicit term of the funding contract and require grantees to make any subsequent copyright transfer agreements subject to the terms of the prior funding contract. Publishers who try to boost voluntary compliance with the current policy, as a tactic to head off a mandate, are effectively conceding that compliance need not cause copyright problems. |