On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Michael Eisen <mbeisen_at_lbl.gov>
wrote:
> There are some interesting threads in the discussion about whether
the
> NIH should have mandated deposition into institutional archives.
But
> the discussion is really kind of pointless, because, as we like to
say
> in these parts "it ain't gonna happen" - for both practical and
> political reasons.
If we had been ready to resign ourselves to "it ain't gonna happen
for
both practical and political reasons," a lot of the OA developments
about
which people were skeptical, pessimistic or opposed in the past
decade
and a half would never have happened.
Since what is at issue is not a change in the NIH policy but
merely a tiny implementational detail -- adding a further
means of deposit to NIH's list (preferential deposit via automated
IR export), along the very lines you are proposing for UC below -- at
no
loss to anyone or anything, and with great promise of gain in global
OA growth, it is certainly not pointless to keep trying to get an
otherwise splendid NIH policy, with a needless implementation
flaw, fixed.
> I would like to shift the discussion a bit to something a bit more
> practical. Now that the NIH policy is in place, how can we most
> effectively leverage it to advance open access.
That is exactly what the discussion was about already! How can we
most effectively leverage NIH policy to advance open access
most effectively -- across disciplines and institutions, globally.
And the way to leverage NIH policy to advance OA most
effectively is to add IR deposit deposit with automated export
as the preferred means of deposit. It is not a change in policy
but a change in an implementational detail.
> I have been trying
> here at the University of California to do just this by proposing
that
> the University:
>
> a) require author deposition in an institutional archive...
> c) handle the deposition of material from the IR to PMC (which may,
or
> may not, require additional steps)
That's it. And what's needed to facilitate it -- not just at UC but
worldwide -- is for NIH to add this as its preferred means of deposit
(as an addition to the other 4 means): Deposit via IR and export to
NIH.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/07/nih-clarifies-deposit-options-und
er-oa.html
> b) require that authors amend copyright agreements with publishers
to
> not only allow deposition in the IR, but to allow redistribution
and
> reuse of the content (so, for example, the full-text could be
ingested
> into PMC, thereby satisfying the NIH mandate)
This could be added to the Harvard mandate, with optional opt-out
as long as the Harvard mandate's own small flaw is also fixed,
which is to also add a mandatory immediate-deposit clause, with no
opt-out, but the option to set access as Closed Access (plus the
Button) in cases where the author opts out of the rights-retention
clause.
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/364-guid.html
The combination of (1) the upgraded NIH policy model and (2) the
upgraded
Harvard policy model would then be the optimal model for emulation by
funders
and institutions worldwide, and the most likely to maximize both OA
mandate
growth and OA growth across all disciplines and institutions
globally.
> ...I'm going to keep trying and would love some thoughts from the
group
> about HOW to do this... and what other steps we might take make
this
> a teachable/actionable moment.
Lobby for (1) the addition of the preferred IR deposit + export
option to
the NIH implementation options and (2) for the addition of the
enhanced
rights-retention clause with opt-out plus the immediate-deposit
clause
without-opt out to the Harvard model. Both are teachable, actionable,
practical, and politically feasible, and many others can work
toward promoting the same two points worldwide.
Above all, never resign yourself to "it ain't gonna happen for
both practical and political reasons."
Stevan Harnad
Received on Sat Jul 26 2008 - 06:36:18 BST