Sorry for cross posting. Thought of sharing this editorial from The Hindu: http://www.hindu.com/2008/04/22/stories/2008042255590800.htm * Public funding and open access * Of what use is research, particularly when it is funded by the government, if the results published in peer-reviewed journals are not freely accessible to the scientific community? Since many journals allow access to published papers only on subscription, researchers, especially those in developing countries, find themselves at a disadvantage. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States' federal agency for conducting and supporting research, has now corrected the anomaly. The Consolidated Appropriations Act passed recently makes it mandatory for researchers funded by the NIH after April 7, 2008, to submit their final peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to the agency's PubMed Central online repository for free access not later than one year after the official date of publication. The scientific community is bound to greatly benefit as nearly 80,000 publications arise from NIH-funded projects every year. Yet, allowing for an embargo of up to a year is not healthy, particularly in the field of medicine. By making it mandatory to submit the manuscript even before its publication, the new policy has ensured that free access will be possible immediately after the expiry of the embargo date. Its initial move in 2005 to make free access possible failed as investigators were under no compulsion to comply. Though several open access peer-reviewed journals have come into being, they are not the first choice for paper submission since they do not enjoy the same standing as the established journals. Though subscription is a source of revenue for journals, the apprehension that free online access would hurt their bottomline is misplaced; the Act is applicable only to papers arising from NIH-funding. In fact, a number of publishers have already agreed to make published articles available to PubMed Central directly. It is commendable that the NIH did not allow commercial interests of publishers to override the merits of free dissemination of information as an essential requirement for scientific advance. The NIH has resolved the contentious issue of copyrights that was dogging free access. By making the authors responsible for working out a copyrights transfer agreement with the publishers that allows them to comply with the policy, it has ensured greater compliance. And by spelling out clearly that compliance with the policy is a "statutory requirement" and that non-compliance will delay or prevent future grants, the policy has ensured that open access becomes a reality at last. -- Saiful Amin +91 9343826438 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.