Open Access News

News from the open access movement


Friday, September 12, 2008

More on the Conyers bill to overturn the NIH policy

Greg Piper, "Open-Access Research Helps Public Without Hurting Publishers, House IP Hears," Washington Internet Daily, September 12, 2008 (accessible only to subscribers).  Excerpt:

The public's right to government-funded health research online was weighed against publishers' intellectual-property rights at a House IP Subcommittee hearing Thursday....

Subcommittee Ranking Member Howard Coble, R-N.C., said he wasn't yet sponsoring Conyers' Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (HR-6845), which would repeal the NIH policy (WID Sept 11 p5), because he had heard that some countries imposed similar requirements without violating IP treaty obligations....

A proposal by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., for NIH to post only unreviewed articles to PubMed Central, with a disclaimer, gained little support. Oman said the idea "can't be that off the wall" because post-publication review is gaining ground in scientific circles. Frank said it would be "disastrous" for NIH to put its "imprimatur" on such articles, even with a disclaimer, since scientific journals reject nine submissions in 10. Zerhouni agreed.

Comment.  Some valuable detail not reported elsewhere.  Just one quibble:  "The public's right to government-funded health research online was weighed against publishers' intellectual-property rights...."  This would be more accurate if it referred to publishers' IP interests, or financial interests, rather than to their IP rights.  Publishers don't have any IP rights in NIH-funded research except the rights that NIH-funded authors voluntarily transfer to them.  Publishers want those rights, but they don't already have them and they don't have a right to demand them.