The UK's Medical Research Council (MRC) has launched an FAQ on OA. There are some new points here even for those who have been following the evolution of the MRC's OA policy. For example, the MRC will use the Bethesda definition of OA (Question 1). It will also follow the Wellcome Trust in using a strict mandate: grantees who want to publish in journals that don't permit OA archiving on the MRC's terms, including the maximum six month embargo, must negotiate with the journal or publish elsewhere (Question 9), although they may petition MRC to make a rare exception (Question 15).
Comment. Kudos to the MRC for using the Wellcome-type mandate that doesn't let publishers set the embargo period. As I've argued before, the legal basis of funder OA policies should be the enforceable funding contract (or a specially enacted government license), not the consent of a third party like the grantee's publisher.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 11/29/2006 02:41:00 PM.
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.
