The (anonymized) query below concerning Wiley's NIH policy is in error,
so I am preceding it by a correction:
(1) The new Wiley NIH policy below is specific to Wiley's compliance
with the NIH public access policy, which invites NIH fundees to
deposit their NIH-funded papers in PubMed Central (PMC) -- a third
party central archive (i.e., neither the author's institutional
archive nor the publisher's archive).
(2) The Wiley NIH policy is to deposit the author's paper in PMC on
the author's behalf.
(3) The Wiley NIH policy has no bearing whatsoever on 1st-party
self-archiving by the author in the author's own institutional
repository; Wiley's policy on immediate author/institution
self-archiving is and continues to be green:
http://romeo.eprints.org/publishers/45.html
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php#45
Just as it would be a good idea if publishers were to refrain from
speculating about doomsday scenarios (about catastrophic cancellations
as a result of self-archiving) for which there is zero positive evidence
and against which there is a good deal of negative evidence,
http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/11006/
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3777.html
it would be a good idea if librarians and OA advocates were to refrain
from speculating about sinister scenarios involving NIH-inspired publisher
back-sliding on self-archiving policy, for which there is and continues to
be exactly *one* single isolated example -- Nature Publishing Group -- and
even that merely a case of back-sliding from a postprint full-green policy
to a preprint pale-green policy (which is of next to no consequence,
as one can have 100% OA with corrected preprints).
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4312.html
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#32.Poisoned
Author/institution self-archiving is and always was the 100% certain
path to 100% OA. 100% self-archiving is (and always was) completely
within the hands of the research community. And it is unstoppable. The
fact that we are not there yet is definitely not the fault of publishers
but of the sluggishness and slow-wittedness of the research community
(which is also it's primary beneficiary).
But it does look as if we are coming to our senses at last... The RCUK
policy may prove to be the decisive step.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4611.html
Stevan Harnad
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 12:12:15 +0100
To: <AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM_at_LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG>
From: [identity deleted]
Subject: Wiley Publishers deposit in PMC
Stevan
This could be a way of publishers encouraging authors not to deposit -
ie the publisher will do it, but creates an embargo because it appears
that the publisher deposited article will not be available until 12
months after publication? Do you know if other publishers are following
this policy?
[identity deleted]
The National Institutes of Health Public Access Initiative
Response and Guidance for Journal Editors and Contributors
Notice of Wiley's Compliance with NIH Grants and Contracts Policy
Recently, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has requested that its
grantees submit copies of manuscripts upon their acceptance for publication
to PubMedCentral (PMC), a repository housed within the National Library of
Medicine..
On behalf of our authors who are also NIH grantees, Wiley will deposit in
PMC at the same time that the article is published in our journal the
peer-reviewed version of the author's manuscript. Wiley will stipulate that
the manuscript may be available for "public access" in PMC 12 months after
the date of publication.
By assuming this responsibility, Wiley will ensure that authors are in
compliance with the NIH request, as well as make certain the appropriate
version of the manuscript is deposited.
When an NIH grant is mentioned in the Acknowledgments or any other section
of a manuscript, Wiley will assume that the author wants the manuscript
deposited into PMC, unless the author states otherwise. The author can
communicate this via email, or a note in the manuscript. The version of the
manuscript that Wiley sends to PMC will be the accepted version, i.e. the
version that the journal's Editor-in-Chief sends to Wiley for publication.
Wiley will notify the author when the manuscript has been sent to PMC.
Because Wiley is taking the responsibility for sending the manuscripts to
PMC, in order to ensure an orderly process, authors should not deposit
Wiley articles to PMC themselves. Authors should not make corrections to
their Wiley-deposited manuscripts in PMC.
Wiley reserves the right to change or rescind this policy.
For further information, please get in touch with your editorial contact at
Wiley, or see the <
http://www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/>NIH Policy on
Public Access.
Received on Mon Jul 25 2005 - 12:44:59 BST