Re: Deposit Mandates as part of Publisher Services

From: Stevan Harnad <>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:11:07 +0000

On Tue, 18 Mar 2008, Gherman, Paul wrote:

> At Vanderbilt, our Medical Library has been doing significant
> work contacting publishers to find out what their policy and
> procedures are. One discovery is that some of them intend to
> charge authors between $900 and $3,000 to submit articles to NIH.
> Some will allow for early posting, if the fee is paid.

Those are the wages of whim.

But they are easily fixed, free of charge:

    (1) NIH specifies the researcher's own IR as the locus for the
    mandated direct deposit. (PubMed Central can harvest the metadata
    or full-text.)

    (2) Universities mandate deposit in their IRs immediately upon
    acceptance for publication (for all their research output, not
    just NIH).

    (3) The deposit must be immediate; the access should be set as OA
    immediately, but it may optionally be set as Closed Access during
    a limited embargo period (during which all research user needs can
    be fulfilled with the help of the IR's semi-automatic "email eprint
    request" button.

    (4) Along with encouraging (but not mandating) setting access to the
    (mandated) immediate deposit as Open Access rather than Closed Access
    wherever possible, universities can also encourage (but not mandate
    -- because a mandate with an opt-out option is not a mandate anyway)
    Harvard-style copyright retention wherever possible.

The (outrageous) notion of being charged $900 - $3000 per paper for
complying with the NIH Green OA self-archiving mandate is something the
NIH has invited upon itself by not thinking through the details of the
mandate sufficiently, and mandating direct 3rd-party repository deposit
instead of integrating the NIH mandate with Harvard-style university
mandates, requiring immediate deposit in the university employee's own
IR, without exceptions or opt-outs, and with embargoed OA access-setting
the only (temporary) compromise.

I am confident that this will be the ultimate outcome in any case. The
only question is, how long will it take all the wise and well-intentioned
parties involved to take a deep breath, think it through, and do it,
instead of hurtling ahead with alternatives they have already committed
themselves to, without thinking them through sufficiently rigorously...

    "How To Integrate University and Funder Open Access Mandates"

Stevan Harnad

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> [] On Behalf Of T Scott Plutchak
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:08 PM
> To:;
> Subject: RE: Deposit Mandates as part of Publisher Services
> Thank you, Ann, for suggesting this! I've been puzzling over the
> same thing. Might I suggest that it would also be useful if you
> could get samples of the messages that the publisher will send to
> the investigator to alert them that they need to go in to approve
> the submission? It'll be very helpful as we're preparing
> information pages for our folks if we can provide them with
> concrete examples of what to expect.
> Scott
> T. Scott Plutchak
> Director, Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences
> University of Alabama at Birmingham
> ________________________________
> From: on behalf of Ann Okerson
> Sent: Fri 3/14/2008 11:37 AM
> To:
> Subject: Deposit Mandates as part of Publisher Services
> This message is aimed (primarily but not necessarily exclusively)
> at the STM publishers who are members of liblicense-l:
> If your publishing organization is providing for your authors the
> service of deposit of their articles according to various
> mandates, particularly NIH (beginning on 4/7) could you kindly
> describe the nature or extent of these services by sending *to
> me* ( a descriptive note of what and how
> you do this? If you are in the planning stages, can you write to
> that effect? It will be helpful, from the institutional end, to
> understand where such services are being or will be provided,
> outside of universities, as we continue to develop our own
> protocols. If there is overlap or redundancy, it might be useful
> to sort that out. If your response should be confidential at
> this time, please so note.
> If there is an interesting set of responses, I'll summarize here.
> Thank you, Ann Okerson/Yale Library
Received on Wed Mar 19 2008 - 14:24:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:16 GMT