Unrestricted dissemination of your articles via PubMed Central can
increase the impact and visibility of your work; recent studies have
shown that articles that are available without subscriptions or other
financial barriers are cited more frequently and appropriately than
those that are not (Antelman, K., "Do Open Access Articles Have a
Greater Research Impact?" College and Research Libraries, Sept. 2004).
Due to the rising subscription costs libraries face, many of your
colleagues and virtually all members of the public can't access your
papers. [From 1998-2003, the average price of an academic journal
increased at more than five times the rate of inflation, according to a
United Kingdom Parliamentary Committee's findings.]
-- The proposed NIH policy will not put you in conflict with journal
policies - many publishers already deposit their articles in PMC
voluntarily, some, like PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine, immediately
upon
publication, others with a delay of two to twelve months or more. None
have seen any decline in their subscription bases, although some have
seen evidence of increased interest in their journals (see
http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/archive/?page=features&issue=6)
-- The proposed NIH policy accommodates a variety of publishing models
and favors none - it simply states that the NIH, as a federal funding
agency supported by the taxpayers, is committed to sharing the results
of the research it supports with the public.
Smita Chandra
ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:01:00 -0800 From: george@library.caltech.edu Subject: Opportunity to voice your thoughts on the NIH Public Access Policy To: PAMNET@listserv.nd.edu
ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:01:00 -0800 From: george@library.caltech.edu Subject: Opportunity to voice your thoughts on the NIH Public Access Policy To: PAMNET@listserv.nd.edu Forwarding from the SPARC Open Access Forum. Although the encouragement to weigh in is originally from PLoS, I support the notion that a
Forwarding from the SPARC Open Access Forum. Although the encouragement
to weigh in is originally from PLoS, I support the notion that a
diversity of opinions exist on the wisdom of the proposal. Hopefully
rational, factual feedback to NIH will result in a considered decision
which will address all of the legitimate concerns expressed.
George S. Porter
Sherman Fairchild Library of Engineering & Applied Science
California Institute of Technology
Mail Code 1-43, Pasadena, CA 91125-4300
Telephone (626) 395-3409 Fax (626) 431-2681
http://library.caltech.edu
contributor http://stlq.info |
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
---------------------------------------
Forwarding from PLoS. I couldn't agree more: the deadline for comments
on the NIH plan is November 16. You should definitely consider
expressing your support. For more, see my FAQ on the NIH plan,
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/nihfaq.htm
Peter [Suber]
----------cut here----------
Dear Colleague,
As you may know, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently
proposed an "Enhanced Public Access Policy" that will, if adopted,
increase the availability of the research findings funded by NIH. The
plan would require that all articles resulting from NIH-funded studies
be made freely available to the public no later than six months after
publication, through the National Library of Medicine's centralized
archive of full-text literature, PubMed Central (PMC).
Many members of the publishing industry have been critical of the
pending move, fearing a negative impact on their subscription revenues
if they release even a subset of the articles they publish (those funded
by NIH) to PMC. But many others, including quite a few prominent
scientists and journal editors, support NIH's prospective action to
increase access to important biomedical discoveries.
.
Your perspective and experience both as a supporter of open access and
as a scientist who conducts research and publishes, reviews, edits, and
reads articles is critically relevant to NIH as it considers the pros
and cons of moving forward with its plan. For that reason, we urge you
to submit a comment on the issue using this link:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/public_access/add.htm.
At the bottom of this email are some ideas you might incorporate into
your statement. Please note that it is important that you indicate your
institutional affiliation and position and craft a unique comment -
better to be brief and specific than long and wordy. Comments from
scientists outside the US are extremely valuable, too.
More information about the policy is available at
http://www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/index.htm. Notable statements of
support for the plan include:
* An open letter to the US Congress signed by 25 Nobel Laureates:
http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/bof.html.
* The Council of the National Academy of Sciences:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s09162004?OpenDocument.
* The Alliance for Taxpayer Access (site provides up-to-date
information about the policy): http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/
Ideas you might include in your comment:
-- Unrestricted dissemination of your articles via PubMed Central can
increase the impact and visibility of your work; recent studies have
shown that articles that are available without subscriptions or other
financial barriers are cited more frequently and appropriately than
those that are not (Antelman, K., "Do Open Access Articles Have a
Greater Research Impact?" College and Research Libraries, Sept. 2004).
Due to the rising subscription costs libraries face, many of your
colleagues and virtually all members of the public can't access your
papers. [From 1998-2003, the average price of an academic journal
increased at more than five times the rate of inflation, according to a
United Kingdom Parliamentary Committee's findings.]
-- The proposed NIH policy will not put you in conflict with journal
policies - many publishers already deposit their articles in PMC
voluntarily, some, like PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine, immediately upon
publication, others with a delay of two to twelve months or more. None
have seen any decline in their subscription bases, although some have
seen evidence of increased interest in their journals (see
http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/archive/?page=features&issue=6)
-- The proposed NIH policy accommodates a variety of publishing models
and favors none - it simply states that the NIH, as a federal funding
agency supported by the taxpayers, is committed to sharing the results
of the research it supports with the public.
The comment period is open until November 16, 2004. Thanks very much in
advance for your support of open access!
Helen Doyle, Ph.D.
Director of Development and Strategic Alliances
Public Library of Science
**************************************************
To send an email to PAMnet:
pamnet@listserv.nd.edu
To view PAMnet Archives:
http://listserv.nd.edu/archives/pamnet.html
To unsubscribe to PAMnet:
http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=pamnet&A;=1
To modify subscription settings:
http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=pamnet&A;=1
_______________________________________________
LIS-Forum mailing list
LIS-Forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in
http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partneronline.
Unrestricted dissemination of your articles via PubMed Central can
increase the impact and visibility of your work; recent studies have
shown that articles that are available without subscriptions or other
financial barriers are cited more frequently and appropriately than
those that are not (Antelman, K., "Do Open Access Articles Have a
Greater Research Impact?" College and Research Libraries, Sept. 2004).
Due to the rising subscription costs libraries face, many of your
colleagues and virtually all members of the public can't access your
papers. [From 1998-2003, the average price of an academic journal
increased at more than five times the rate of inflation, according to a
United Kingdom Parliamentary Committee's findings.]
-- The proposed NIH policy will not put you in conflict with journal
policies - many publishers already deposit their articles in PMC
voluntarily, some, like PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine, immediately
upon
publication, others with a delay of two to twelve months or more. None
have seen any decline in their subscription bases, although some have
seen evidence of increased interest in their journals (see
http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/archive/?page=features&issue=6
http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/archive/?page=features&issue=6
)
-- The proposed NIH policy accommodates a variety of publishing models
and favors none - it simply states that the NIH, as a federal funding
agency supported by the taxpayers, is committed to sharing the results
of the research it supports with the public.
Smita Chandra