Dear Colleagues, Further to Herbert's summary, which I support, the publishers allowing the deposition of their published version/PDF in Institutional Repositories can be found listed here:-
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/PDFandIR.php?la=en Best wishes, John On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Herbert J. Bernstein <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > If you want an excellent, painless transfer from journal to PUBMED, just > stick > to the IUCr journals. They do an excellent job of cooperating in the NIH > open access policy with an automatic transfer of the clean refereeded and > edited > paper to PUBMED. Yes, the IUCr journal copy does look prettier -- more > power to them -- but nothing is missing from the PUBMED version, so > everybody benefits: the IUCr has its subscription money from libraries and > individuals who need results as quickly as possible or in the best form, and > students and researchers without an institutional subscription can still get > a completely valid and complete copy on line. > > If you pay IUCr for open access and are NIH funded, they deposit in PUBMED > immediately. If you don't pay IUCr for open access and are NIH funded, they > deposit in PUBMED a year after publication. Either way it works and works > well, > you get excellent editing, you are publishing in very respectable journals, > and > your work ends up available to everybody. > > So, if you want a balanced, nuanced approach, please sign the petition, but > also > publish in the IUCr journals if you work fits, but don't publish in any > journals > that don't do automatic deposition or that support the NIH Open Access > policy poorly. > > Regards, > Herbert > > > On 2/16/12 12:27 PM, Enrico Stura wrote: >> >> Charlie, >> >> A much more balanced view than others have posted. >>> >>> NIH Open Access requirement is a vast overreach. >> >> I agree. >>> >>> HR 3699 appears to be as deeply flawed. >> >> It could be made better with amendments? >> >> Enrico. >> >> On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:06:24 +0100, Charles W. Carter, Jr >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> For what it's worth, my own experience with the issue of scholarly >>> publication and open access is nuanced enough that perhaps my two-bits worth >>> can add to this discussion. In short, I agree both with Ian's previous >>> message and with Herbert, and feel that the incompatibility between them >>> goes to the root of a problem for which the answer is certainly not quite >>> there. >>> >>> I have been much influenced by the work done on this issue by Fred Dylla, >>> Executive Director of the American Institute of Physics. Here is a link to >>> recent information concerning his four-year effort to reach consensus on >>> this issue: >>> >>> http://www.aip.org/aip/aipmatters/archive/2011/1_24_11.html >>> >>> I personally think that the NIH Open Access requirement is a vast >>> overreach. PubMed Central is very difficult to use and ultimately has never >>> satisfied me: I always go to the UNC library holdings. There are several >>> reasons why. The most immediate is that PubMed Central almost never gives a >>> satisfactory copy of a paper I want to read, and the most serious reason is >>> that I am convinced that the overhead exacted on authors and PIs by the NIH >>> means that few, if any authors give much more than a glance in the direction >>> of updating deposited manuscripts from journals that do not automatically >>> deposit the version of record. For this reason, many PubMed Central entries >>> are likely to have more than minor errors corrected in proof only in the >>> version of record. I don't personally see any way around the problem that >>> there is only one version of record and that version is the one for which >>> copyright is retained by the publisher. >>> >>> On the other hand, I am deeply sympathetic to the argument that >>> publicly-funded research must be freely accessible. After talking intensely >>> with the library administrators at UNC, I also believe deeply that >>> university library subscriptions satisfy the need for open access. Casting >>> aside for the moment the issue of Open Access journals, whose only real >>> difference lies in who pays the costs of publication, I have long believed >>> that careful validation through peer review constitutes serious added value >>> and that journals are entitled to being paid for that added value. What >>> makes this issue more difficult for me is that I share with many the deep >>> suspicions of corporate (as opposed to Member Society) publishing >>> organizations. Several years ago I withdrew my expertise from the Nature >>> group in protest over what I felt (after, again, long discussions with our >>> UNC librarians) was a power play designed only to weaken the library >>> systems. I have similar views about Elsevier. >>> >>> Finally, I am inclined to sign this petition for other reasons, including >>> the fact that HR 3699 appears to be as deeply flawed in the other direction >>> as the original enabling legislation that vested such power in the NIH and, >>> in the same act, all but eliminated any opposition by diluting >>> responsibility for compliance to the fullest possible extent, by penalizing >>> PIs for non-compliance. When I first read of this petition, I was deeply >>> incensed that the wing nuts in Congress would craft a bill so obviously >>> designed to reward the 1%, so to speak. >>> >>> In closing, I earnestly recommend that as many of you as possible look >>> into Fred Dylla's work on this issue. The AIP is a publisher whose only >>> revenue other than philanthropy comes from the intellectual property and >>> added value of its journals, some of which represent the finest in physical >>> chemistry relevant to our community. Dylla deserves kudos for his effort to >>> find consensus, something that seems to have gone way out of fashion in >>> recent years. >>> >>> Charlie >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Ian Tickle wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Herbert >>>> >>>> Thanks for your detailed explanation. I had missed the important >>>> point that it's the requirement on the authors to assent to open >>>> access after a year, which the proposed Bill seeks to abolish, that's >>>> critical here. >>>> >>>> I will go and sign the petition right now! >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> -- Ian >>>> >>>> On 16 February 2012 15:24, Herbert J. Bernstein >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The bill summary says: >>>>> >>>>> Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting, >>>>> maintaining, >>>>> continuing, or otherwise engaging in any policy, program, or other >>>>> activity >>>>> that: (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any >>>>> private-sector research work without the prior consent of the >>>>> publisher; or >>>>> *(2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the author's >>>>> employer, assent to such network dissemination. * >>>>> >>>>> Defines "private-sector research work" as an article intended to be >>>>> published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of >>>>> such >>>>> an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government, describing or >>>>> interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency >>>>> and to >>>>> which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into >>>>> an >>>>> arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review >>>>> or >>>>> editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs >>>>> routinely >>>>> required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding agency >>>>> in the >>>>> course of research. >>>>> >>>>> ========================================== >>>>> >>>>> It is the second provision that really cuts the legs out from the NIH >>>>> open >>>>> access policy. What the NIH policy does is to make open access >>>>> publication a >>>>> condition imposed on the grant holders in publishing work that the NIH >>>>> funded. This has provided the necessary lever for NIH-funded authors to >>>>> be >>>>> able to publish in well-respected journals and still to be able to >>>>> require >>>>> that, after a year, their work be available without charge to the >>>>> scientific >>>>> community. Without that lever we go back to the unlamented old system >>>>> (at >>>>> least unlamented by almost everybody other than Elsevier) in which >>>>> pubishers >>>>> could impose an absolute copyright transfer that barred the authors >>>>> from >>>>> ever posting copies of their work on the web. People affiliated with >>>>> libraries with the appropriate subscriptions to the appropriate >>>>> archiving >>>>> services may not have noticed the difference, but for the significant >>>>> portions of both researchers and students who did not have such access, >>>>> the >>>>> NIH open access policy was by itself a major game changer, making much >>>>> more >>>>> literature rapidly accessible, and even more importantly changed the >>>>> culture, making open access much more respectable. >>>>> >>>>> The NIH policy does nothing more than put grant-sponsored research on >>>>> almost >>>>> the same footing as research done directly by the government which has >>>>> never >>>>> been subject to copyright at all, on the theory that, if the tax-payers >>>>> already paid for the research, they should have open access to the >>>>> fruits of >>>>> that research. This law would kill that policy. This would be a major >>>>> step >>>>> backwards. >>>>> >>>>> Please read: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/evo-eco-lab/2012/01/16/mistruths-insults-from-the-copyright-lobby-over-hr-3699/ >>>>> >>>>> http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/action_access/12-0106.shtml >>>>> >>>>> http://www.care2.com/causes/open-access-under-threat-hr-3699.html >>>>> >>>>> Please support the petition. This is a very bad bill. It is not about >>>>> protecting copyright, it is an effort to restrict the free flow of >>>>> scientific information in our community. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Herbert >>>>> >>>>> On 2/16/12 9:02 AM, Fischmann, Thierry wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Herbert >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't see how the act could affect the NIH open access policy. Could >>>>>> you >>>>>> please shed some light on that? >>>>>> >>>>>> What I read seems reasonable and I intend to ask my representatives to >>>>>> support this text. But obviously I am missing something and like to >>>>>> learn >>>>>> from you first. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Thierry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>>>> Herbert J. Bernstein >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:16 AM >>>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Fwd: HR3699, Research Works Act >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Ian, >>>>>> >>>>>> You are mistaken. The proposed law has nothing to do with >>>>>> preventing >>>>>> the >>>>>> encouragement people to break copyright law. It has everything to do >>>>>> with >>>>>> trying to kill the very reasonable NIH open access policy that >>>>>> properly >>>>>> balances the rights of publishers with the rights of authors and the >>>>>> interests of >>>>>> the scientific community. Most publishers fare quite well under a >>>>>> policy that >>>>>> gives them a year of exclusive control over papers, followed by open >>>>>> access. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is, unfortunately, a standard ploy in current American politics >>>>>> to >>>>>> make a >>>>>> law which does something likely to be very unpopular and very >>>>>> unreasonable >>>>>> sound like it is a law doing something quite different. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please reread it carefully. I think you will join in opposing this >>>>>> law. Science >>>>>> benefits from the NIH open access policy and the rights of all >>>>>> concerned >>>>>> are respected. It would be a mistake to allow the NIH open access >>>>>> policy >>>>>> to >>>>>> be killed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I hope you will sign the petition. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Herbert >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/16/12 6:29 AM, Ian Tickle wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reading the H.R.3699 bill as put forward >>>>>>> (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03699:@@@L&summ2=m&;) >>>>>>> it seems to be about prohibiting US federal agencies from having >>>>>>> policies which permit, authorise or require authors' assent to break >>>>>>> the law of copyright in respect of published journal articles >>>>>>> describing work funded at least in part by a US federal agency. I'm >>>>>>> assuming that "network dissemination without the publisher's consent" >>>>>>> is the same thing as breaking the law of copyright. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to imply that it would still be legal for US federal >>>>>>> agencies >>>>>>> to encourage others to break the law of copyright in respect of >>>>>>> journal articles describing work funded by say UK funding agences! - >>>>>>> or is there already a US law in place which prohibits that? I'm only >>>>>>> surprised that encouraging others to break the law isn't already >>>>>>> illegal (even for Govt agencies): isn't that the law of incitement >>>>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This forum in fact already has such a policy in place for all journal >>>>>>> articles (i..e not just those funded by US federal agencies but by >>>>>>> all >>>>>>> funding agencies), i.e. we actively discourage postings which incite >>>>>>> others to break the law by asking for copies of copyrighted published >>>>>>> articles. Perhaps the next petition should seek to overturn this >>>>>>> policy? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This petition seems to be targeting the wrong law: if what you want >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> free flow of information then it's the copyright law that you need to >>>>>>> petition to overturn, or you get around it by publishing in someplace >>>>>>> that doesn't require transfer of copyright. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- Ian >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 16 February 2012 09:35, Tim Gruene<[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear Raji, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> maybe you could increase the number of supporters if you included a >>>>>>>> link >>>>>>>> to (a description of) the content of HR3699 - I will certainly not >>>>>>>> sign >>>>>>>> something only summarised by a few polemic sentences ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>> Tim >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 02/15/2012 11:53 PM, Raji Edayathumangalam wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you agree, please signing the petition below. You need to >>>>>>>>> register >>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>> the link below before you can sign this petition. Registration and >>>>>>>>> signing >>>>>>>>> the petition took about a minute or two. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Raji >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>> From: Seth Darst<[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> Date: Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM >>>>>>>>> Subject: HR3699, Research Works Act >>>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rep. Caroline Maloney has not backed off in her attempt to put >>>>>>>>> forward >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> interests of Elsevier and other academic publishers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you oppose this measure, please sign this petition on the >>>>>>>>> official >>>>>>>>> 'we >>>>>>>>> the people' White House web site. It needs 23,000 signatures before >>>>>>>>> February 22nd and only 1100 so far. Please forward far and wide. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Oppose HR3699, the Research Works Act >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> HR 3699, the Research Works Act will be detrimental to the free >>>>>>>>> flow of >>>>>>>>> scientific information that was created using Federal funds. It is >>>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>>> attempt to put federally funded scientific information behind >>>>>>>>> pay-walls, >>>>>>>>> and confer the ownership of the information to a private entity. >>>>>>>>> This >>>>>>>>> is an >>>>>>>>> affront to open government and open access to information created >>>>>>>>> using >>>>>>>>> public funds. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This link gets you to the petition: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/oppose-hr3699-research-works-act/vKMhCX9k >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - -- - -- Dr Tim Gruene >>>>>>>> Institut fuer anorganische Chemie >>>>>>>> Tammannstr. 4 >>>>>>>> D-37077 Goettingen >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>>>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) >>>>>>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> iD8DBQFPPM3kUxlJ7aRr7hoRAsKYAKDIs/jZHPBIV4AB2qrpBdXrSOn+VwCePabR >>>>>>>> Nm6+LK17jLJnPTqkjsQ4fV8= >>>>>>>> =a27t >>>>>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains >>>>>> information of Merck& Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station, >>>>>> New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates Direct contact >>>>>> information >>>>>> for affiliates is available at >>>>>> http://www.merck.com/contact/contacts.html) that may be confidential, >>>>>> proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is intended >>>>>> solely >>>>>> for the use of the individual or entity named on this message. If you >>>>>> are >>>>>> not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, >>>>>> please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from >>>>>> your system. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> > -- Professor John R Helliwell DSc
