IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

[Journal-notes] Re: A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy

Stevan Harnad harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Wed Jun 22 20:21:39 EST 2005


On Wed, 22 Jun 2005, David Goodman wrote:

> If we were able to achieve both a network of discipline based repositories, and one
> of IRs (thus accommodating all preferences), would it not be better for the items to be
> mirrored, rather than just linked and harvested? The virtue of mirroring would 
> be the provision of multiple copies as an automatic byproduct and immediately 
> providing truly reliable archiving not under the control of a single institution. 

Mirroring (and back-up, caching, and other valuable features) are not
an *or*, in place of linking and harvesting, they are an *and*, as a
safeguard, and for speed and efficiency.

> As for the rest of the NIH policy, it does have one really good feature that 
> you did not mention. It would be very easy to improve on it next year. 
> The embargo can be shortened, all the way to zero. The material can improve to 
> the pdf's. The "requested," which is being read by all those with NIH grants as 
> meaning "required, unless you want to gamble with your career" can change to "required."

One can always improve on a flawed policy. But meanwhile, the clock is
ticking, and valuable usage and impact are being needlessly lost, while
people do wait-and-see apologetics for a needlessly flawed policy -- and
one that runs the risk of being cloned and copied in its present flawed
form, just because of where it comes from. Not to mention the Publisher
Back-Sliding (like Nature's) that this flawed policy (inadvertently)
encourages, and continues to encourage as long as it remains in place,
thereby slowing things even further.

As I said, though, other, far better models are out there, and on the ascendant.

    http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php

(And moving from authors' postprints to publishers' PDFs is not necessarily an
improvement!)

Stevan Harnad

AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM:
A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing
open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2005)
is available at:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/
        To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
        Post discussion to:
        american-scientist-open-access-forum at amsci.org

UNIVERSITIES: If you have adopted or plan to adopt an institutional
policy of providing Open Access to your own research article output,
please describe your policy at:
        http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php

UNIFIED DUAL OPEN-ACCESS-PROVISION POLICY:
    BOAI-1 ("green"): Publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal
            http://romeo.eprints.org/
OR
    BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a open-access journal if/when 
            a suitable one exists.
            http://www.doaj.org/
AND  
    in BOTH cases self-archive a supplementary version of your article
            in your institutional repository.
            http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
            http://archives.eprints.org/





More information about the Jrnlnote mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net