Publisher Lobby Opposes Strengthening NIH Policy, Again

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:10:47 +0100

Peter Suber says it all:

 From Peter Suber's Open Access News

    Publishers oppose strengthening the NIH policy, again

    The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has released a June 25
    letter from a group of society publishers to members of Congress.

    The letter opposes appropriations bills now before Congress that
    would strengthen the NIH public access policy by converting it from
    a request to a requirement.

    The publisher arguments are old, tired, and weak, and Congress now
    sees through them:

     -- an OA mandate at NIH will kill peer review...
     -- it will violate copyright...
     -- there's no need to compromise since publishers provide all the
        added value here and taxpayers none of it...
     -- European countries are not really adopting similar policies...
     -- researchers don't want it...
     -- the compliance rate with the current voluntary policy is not
        as dismal as it looks...
     -- and bad as the proposal is, it duplicates what publishers are
        already doing...

    I won't write a detailed rebuttal to this letter. But for detailed
    rebuttals to very similar past letters, see my March 30, 2007,
    response to a March 26 AAP letter opposed to strengthening the NIH
    or my May 10, 2006, response to a May 9 AAP letter opposed to FRPAA .

  Posted by Peter Suber at 7/02/2007 04:48:00 PM.


For more prior rebuttals (2004 - 2007) of the publishing lobby's same
old, tired, and weak arguments against the UK, RCUK, NIH, FRPAA and EC
OA Self-Archiving Mandate Proposals (and for the simple ways in which
each mandate can be formulated in such a way as to completely remove
the publishing lobby from the decision loop) see:

A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy

Guide for the Perplexed: Re: UK Select Committee Inquiry

Critique of PSP/AAP Critique of NIH Proposal

Critique of STM Critique of NIH Proposal

Critique of Stanford/HighWire Press Critique of NIH Proposal

Critique of PSP/AAP Critique of NIH Proposal

Critique of APS Critique of NIH Proposal

Please Don't Copy-Cat Clone NIH-12 Non-OA Policy!

Critique of Graham Taylor's critique of the RCUK policy proposal

Open Letter to Research Councils UK: Rebuttal of ALPSP Critique

Journal Publishing and Author Self-Archiving:
Peaceful Co-Existence and Fruitful Collaboration

Rebuttal of STM Response to RCUK Self-Archiving Policy Proposal

Critique of Research Fortnight article on RCUK policy proposal

Not a Proud Day in the Annals of the Royal Society

Critique of AAP/PSP Critique of FRPAA Proposal

How to Counter All Opposition to the FRPAA Self-Archiving Mandate

Feedback on the Brussels EC Meeting on Open Access

The Immediate-Deposit/Optional Access (ID/OA) Mandate:
Rationale and Model

Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates:
What? Where? When? Why? How?

Stevan Harnad
Received on Tue Jul 03 2007 - 01:55:21 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:59 GMT