...[T]he US National Institutes of Health already expends an estimated $30 million annually in direct costs for [toll-access] publication expenses, and provides for "indirect costs" which can be used to pay for such items as library subscriptions and site license fees.
It would make good economic sense for libraries, researchers, and the NIH, to consider redeploying some or all of these "indirect cost" funds currently spent on library subscriptions or site licensing fees, to support open access initiatives.
This makes good economic sense for the NIH. Every article that is published or self-archived for open access is then available for every researcher. Other NIH funded researchers will enjoy savings from grant funds that might have otherwise gone to subscription, interlibrary loan or pay per view fees. Researchers not funded by the NIH also benefit, both financially and in terms of greater access. This increases their capacity to forward our knowledge in the medical arena, which then benefits future NIH researchers and advances us all more quickly to the real goals: understanding, treating, and curing disease....
Posted by
Peter Suber at 8/12/2007 10:28:00 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.
