Unlike Peter, I regard this as a typical example of what one does _not_ want
from a government mandate.
There is only one positive thing to be said for this, which is that it is
better than user-paid ("toll") access.
The proposal is for
"access to authors' final manuscripts (as accepted for
journal publication) and supplemental materials via PubMed Central
six months after publication"
This is the weakest form of OA that I have ever seen proposed. (I am open to
correction by anyone who remembers worse--I cannot.) First, it accepts as OA
access to authors' manuscripts together with supplemental material--by which I
presume they mean corrections lists. Many are willing to consider this as OA ,
but they generally say that while this might be acceptable it is not very
good. ("Pale green" is I think the preferred term.) It is inferior to authors
manuscripts corrected by the author, which is in turn inferior to
author-produced pdf copies from the publishers' print, which is in turn
inferior to posting the pdf from the publisher.
Second, it accepts posting of even this weakest form, six months after
publication. Some definitions of OA accept delayed OA. Those publishers which
do offer delayed OA, offer delayed OA to the article as published, from the
publisher's or supplier's site. If any publisher offers as little as this, I
have yet to encounter it.
Third, it provides that the author might use government-provided publication
funds for the publishing of material posted under the weakest form of OA. Those
in favor of government mandates generally ask that it provides access to the
authentic text.
This is a discussion of strategy, which involves the path to future progress;
reasonable people might well differ here. Peter, and undoubtedly others,
including Chuck Hamaker on liblicense, apparently think that requiring even
this little is a positive step that will lead to future progress. I think that
it is not productive to accept such a small increment, and that is may greatly
delay substantial progress--that the government may now consider the problem
solved permanently.
I suggest this analogy: it is like prescription drug assistance for the
elderly. An absurdly weak bill was proposed, and some organizations like the
AARP supported it. Others felt, as I did, that to accept this was to run the
risk of never getting more. Analogies are not strong arguments, but here the
parallelism is obvious.
I thus propose the following hypothesis: The publishers will not strongly
oppose the bill. They will after perhaps minimal objections, be glad it is no
worse, and realize that it might hold off real reform a few years longer.
I do not intend to oppose the measure outside our community. I might be wrong.
I do not think it useful to argue whether or not I am, and so do not intend to
reply further: this will very soon be settled by event. If I am wrong it will
be evident first by the publishers' opposition and then by the bill's eventual
success in leading to better, and I will so admit. Alternatively, if I am
right, perhaps the parallel will hold further, and the outrage over getting so
little will result in better measures. Those who intend to actively support
the bill should first consider whether the effect may be the opposite of what
we all desire. Peter and Stevan and Chuck and I should not forget that we all
want to get to the same place.
David
Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer Library School, LIU
[email protected]
and, formerly,
Princeton University Library
This message is intended for Amsci, and should not be reposted on other lists,
but linked to.
