News from the open access movementJump to navigation
The Scholarly Publishing Roundtable --a US group consisting mostly of librarians, publishers, and provosts-- today released its recommendations on OA for publicly-funded research. The group's "core recommendation" calls for OA, and calls for it across the federal government, but stops short of calling for an OA mandate:
Here are the group's eight specific recommendations:
One of the group's background principles is that "the results of research need to be published and maintained in ways that maximize the possibilities for creative reuse and interoperation among sites that host them." You don't have to squint too hard to see that as an endorsement of libre OA.
Update. In my message posting news of the report to the SPARC Open Access Forum, I mistakenly said that Elsevier and PLoS did not sign the final report. I should have said that YS Chi and Mark Patterson did not sign the final report. The members of the panel agreed to participate as individuals, not as representatives of their employers. I regret the error.
Update (1/19/10). I was wrong to criticize Wiley-Blackwell's Health and Social Care in the Community (HSCC) for not following its own policy to deposit articles by NIH-funded authors in PMC. In the period since the NIH policy became mandatory, HSCC has had two submissions based on NIH funding. In the first case it deposited the manuscript in PMC within six days of receipt. The second paper was received very recently and is still in process. (Thanks to Cliff Morgan for the correction.) My apologies to HSCC and Wiley-Blackwell.
Heather Morrison has also posted a correction.