Abstract: On December 26, 2007, President Bush signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. The bill, which became Public Law 110-161, contained a new requirement that manuscripts developed through funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) be made available to the public, free of charge, within one year after publication. This new mandatory requirement struck a compromise position between the existing pay-to-access model of private journal publishers and the potential free-for-all of the public domain. But did it go far enough? Should Congress have adopted a more aggressive policy of opening access to research? Alternatively, did Congress go too far, and as a result have we crippled scientific publishing?
From the conclusion:
...[The permissible 12 month embargo is too long.] A year is simply too long a time period for the law to have a significant impact on how scientists learn from other scientists. Nonetheless, this time frame is good enough in many cases for the general public, for students, and for researchers working outside their primarily discipline. It also provides useful access for scientists and doctors in developing countries. For these groups, free access may well open up opportunities for research that they would otherwise never have had. A move from no access to some access is significant. In addition, by retaining works outside the bounds of the business operations of journal publishers, there is a much-reduced possibility that large swaths of manuscripts will be lost over time....
One unanticipated negative impact has been on the scientific support staff at institutions and universities....
But overall, the move towards greater public access to research is a move in the right direction. The benefits of long-term archiving and free access by those who might not otherwise be able to afford it outweigh the negatives of increased support-staff workload and potentially reduced markets for traditional publishers....
Posted by
Peter Suber at 7/09/2008 10:04:00 AM.
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.
