The NIH enforces the policy by requiring a PMC ID on every paper submitted with grant progress reports and renewals. It's actually fairly effective.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Stevan Harnad <harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk>wrote: > Hard to imagine how fundee compliance with NIH OA policy can be > effectively enforced while: > > (1) Deposit can be done by either the fundee or the publisher > (who is not bound by the grant's conditions) > > (2) Deposit must by directly in PubMed Central instead > of the fundee's institutional repository (where the institution > can monitor publication output and ensure compliance) > > Unlike the institution (which monitors its researchers' > publication output and productivity) the funder is unaware > of what and where papers are published, especially after > peer review is done and the researcher is funded. (Final > Reports come far too late.) > > Hence the natural enforcer for funder policy is of course the > fundee's institution, which already casts an eager eagle eye > on all phases of the all-important research application and > funding process (because of a shared institutional interest > in getting research funding). > > The publisher, in contrast, has every interest in deterring or > delaying OA as much as possible. > > The researcher, meanwhile, is busy writing grant applications > and conducting research, if funded. Publish-or-perish ensures > that researchers publish, but only institutions and institutional > mandates can ensure that the publications are made OA > (especially if institutional repository deposit is designated > as the sole mechanism for submitting research for annual > institutional performance review). > > See http://bit.ly/institutionalOA > > Stevan Harnad > > On 2012-04-23, at 8:03 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote: > > > From: "Hansen, Dave" <drhansen at email.unc.edu> > > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:28:06 +0000 > > > > Does anyone on this list have an idea of how the NIH enforces its > > public access policy? I recently had a conversation with someone who > > has viewed several NIH non-compliance letters. She expressed some > > consternation that, while letters sometimes go out about > > non-compliance, there is no real force behind them and nothing that > > effectively compels compliance. I couldn?t find any more info from the > > NIH itself. > > > > Does anyone have any idea how prevalent non-compliance is and how > > frequently NIH takes actions to enforce the policy, and for those > > library lawyers that I know lurk around on this list, who (if anyone) > > would be able to contest non-enforcement by the NIH?* > > > > *I?m not trying to pick a fight. I?d just like to know who has the > > right to do such a thing. > > > > ----- > > > > David R. Hansen > > Digital Library Fellow > > Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic > > UC Berkeley School of Law > > dhansen at law.berkeley.edu > > (510) 643-8138 > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL at eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- Michael Eisen, Ph.D. Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120425/bc08d516/attachment.html
