Open Access NewsNews from the open access movement Jump to navigation |
|||
More on removing price and permission barriers Jocalyn Clark, Is the NIH open access policy regressive? PLoS blog, July 25, 2008. Notes from the ISMB 2008 meeting (Toronto, July 19-23, 2008). Excerpt:
Before blogging this post, I asked Matt Cockerill for his own recollection of what he said. He gave me permission to quote his reply (Thanks, Matt):
Comments. I'm glad Matt was able to clarify. I agree with his point, but couldn't have agreed that the NIH policy was literally regressive. Like many of our other success stories, the NIH policy a big step forward even if it stops short of BBB OA. The NIH policy provides free online access (gratis OA) to an estimated 80,000 peer-reviewed articles per year. That's unambiguous progress, and it's hard-won. But the policy removes price barriers without removing permission barriers. All other funder and university policies in the world do the same thing. The NIH policy also permits embargoes of up to 12 months, while all other funder policies focused on medical research limit embargoes to six months. Many funder and university OA policies, including the NIH policy, require immediate deposit in an OA repository, but none requires immediate OA release. In short, the NIH policy doesn't provide the kind of immediate BBB OA that many OA journals routinely provide, but neither do any other funder and university policies. The reason is not that NIH came first and set a bad example which late-comers imitated. The reason is that funder and university policies must mandate OA in a way which is compatible with author freedom to publish in all or most journals as they are today, regardless of what we wish them to be (and what they might eventually become). I'm whole-heartedly with those who want to solve this problem, go further, and provide BBB OA to all research literature, and at key points in the evolution of the NIH policy I've proposed exactly this tweak. But we have to make progress in the landscape where we find ourselves, and we shouldn't mistake partial progress for regress. Update (8/2/08). Here's how Matt Cockerill made the point in a blog post on August 2, 2008:
PS: This is true. Another way to put it is that the NIH policy provides gratis OA, while text mining generally requires libre OA. (For more on gratis and libre OA, see my article in the August 2008 SOAN.) |