The undersigned nonprofit organizations that publish journals are long-term supporters of providing public access to medical and scientific information. Nevertheless, we have significant concerns about the National Institutes of Health duplicating private sector on-line publishing through the implementation of a new policy that took effect on May 2, 2005. Of further concern, is language included in the House Labor, HHS Appropriations Bill for 2006 Committee Report that prejudges the value of this policy and calls for more aggressive action to maximize participation. Our organizations are concerned that a full evaluation of the costs and impact of the NIH policy on private sector publishing has not occurred and therefore we seek the inclusion of language in the Senate Committee Report to accompany its FY 2006 Labor, HHS Appropriations Bill directing NIH to provide cost information and to determine the current availability of NIH research articles through existing private sector services....Given Federal budget constraints, every effort should be made to avoid establishing a federally administered and funded program that would duplicate private sector publishing activities, particularly one that may undermine the activities of nonprofit peer-reviewed journal. Rather than create a publication/distribution system for articles already available in the private sector from nonprofit publishers, NIH should use its limited resources to carry out its prime mission of funding biomedical research. Further, we are skeptical about the wisdom and appropriateness of a federal agency entering into the scholarly publishing industry, in competition with and possibly to the ultimate detriment of non-profit private sector publishers.
Comment. Here's some context. (1) The DC Principles coalition opposed the NIH public access policy. (2) The appropriations report cited in the letter (House Report House Report 109-143, June 16, 2005) not only calls for "an aggressive education and outreach initiative aimed at informing grant recipients about the [NIH public access] policy in an effort to maximize full and prompt participation", but also expresses concern that the NIH policy may be too weak to meet its objectives and instructs the NIH to report back to Congress on the rate at which NIH grantees are complying with the request for public access. For the full report language, see SOAN for 7/2/05. The report now goes to the Senate where it may be adopted or modified. Sen. Specter is chairman of the Senate commmittee that will consider the report.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 7/13/2005 09:05:00 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.
