I can appreciate Rick Johnson's enthusiasm for the language which appeared in the House Appropriations Bill for the National Institutes of Health. Clearly, it is designed to show the Federal government's support of open access. However, it should be noted that the language appears to be aimed directly at not-for-profit publishers. While the library community has been complaining about the high subscription prices charged by commercial publishers, they have tended to view the not-for-profit publishers as the "good guys," as noted by Karin Wittenborg, University of Virginia, at the press briefing held for the Washington DC Principles for Free Access to Science. Indeed, we are considered to be "good guys" because we have held down subscription prices through a process of cost sharing in which authors are charged page charges and for color figures. The proposed legislation, introduced by Rep. Ernest Istook, specifically states that the manuscript posted on PubMed Central must be made available immediately in cases in which some or all of the publication costs are paid with NIH grant funds. Manuscripts published in journals produced by commercial publishers that generally do not charge page or color charges would not see their articles made available for six months. A Federal endorsement of the practices of commercial publishers is most troubling to those of us who have tried to contain subscription prices through cost sharing.
The proposed language is also troubling because no matter what some might suggest, there is a real cost for this proposal. At present the budget for the National Library of Medicine is in the range of $300 million. How much is currently devoted to PubMed Central is unclear! However, based on knowledge of the costs associated with the hosting of journals at HighWire Press, it is estimated that a full fledged archive of NIH funded manuscripts at NIH would cost in the neighborhood of $75-100 million. At a time when dollars for research are constrained by large government deficits, it is hard to understand why Congress would wish to sacrifice research dollars for the purpose of archiving articles. It is estimated that NIH would be forced to reduce its grant portfolio by between 200-250 grants, studies that could possible find the next cure for heart disease, cancer, or Alzheimer's Disease. At a time when the same Appropriations bill only mandates a 2.5% increase in the NIH budget and NIH funds are being asked to support initiatives associated with Homeland Security, this proposal is misplaced and inappropriate. Whether or not one embraces open access, either in green or in gold, this is not the way to use NIH funds. Martin Frank, Executive Director, American Physiological Society Coordinator, Washington DC Principles Coalition Martin Frank, Ph.D. Executive Director American Physiological Society 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3991 Tel: 301-634-7118 Fax: 301-634-7242 Email: [email protected] APS Home Page: http://www.The-APS.org/ "...integrating the life sciences from molecule to organism" >>> [email protected] 07/16/04 15:41 PM >>> This is from Peter Suber's Open Access News http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_07_11_fosblogarchive.html#a108990349491867573 Rick Johnson, Director of SPARC, just sent this message to SPARC members. I blog it here with his permission. I want to alert you about an important development. Yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee approved an important provision in connection with the FY 2005 National Institutes of Health (NIH) appropriation. The Committee Report accompanying the FY 2005 Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill recommends that NIH provide free public access to research articles resulting from NIH-funded research. The Report calls on NIH to offer access to authors' final manuscripts (as accepted for journal publication) and supplemental materials via PubMed Central six months after publication. If the grantee used NIH funds to pay any publication charges (e.g., page or color charges, or fees for digital distribution), PMC access would be immediate. The Report instructs NIH to inform the Committee by December 1, 2004 how it intends to implement the policy. This proposal is a reasoned, incremental step that balances the interests of taxpayers and publishers. We believe it will enhance the nation's return on investment in NIH research and contribute to the translation of bench science into clinical practice. SPARC and its allies are working to ensure that the proposal is endorsed in the Senate. In the coming days I will share with you additional information, including steps you can take to demonstrate your support. PS: This is extraordinarily important news. It sensibly focuses on OA archiving, which leaves authors free to publish in non-OA journals if they like. It sensibly avoids the mistakes of the Sabo bill, such as needlessly requiring the public domain rather than open access and needlessly interfering with patentable discoveries. The NIH is the largest funder of science in the US federal government, five times larger than the second-largest funder, the NSF. Expect opposition, and be prepared to support this proposal through personal and institutional letters to members of Congress. I'll report further details as I get them. Peter Suber
