Stevan, If we were able to achieve both a network of discipline based repositories, and one of IRs (thus accommodating all preferences), would it not be better for the items to be mirrored, rather than just linked and harvested? The virtue of mirroring would be the provision of multiple copies as an automatic byproduct and immediately providing truly reliable archiving not under the control of a single institution.
As for the rest of the NIH policy, it does have one really good feature that you did not mention. It would be very easy to improve on it next year. The embargo can be shortened, all the way to zero. The material can improve to the pdf's. The "requested," which is being read by all those with NIH grants as meaning "required, unless you want to gamble with your career" can change to "required." Dr. David Goodman Associate Professor Palmer School of Library and Information Science Long Island University dgood...@liu.edu -----Original Message----- From: American Scientist Open Access Forum on behalf of Stevan Harnad Sent: Wed 6/22/2005 6:18 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy Pertinent Prior AmSci Topic Threads: "A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public Access Policy" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4091.html "Please Don't Copy-Cat Clone NIH-12 Non-OA Policy!" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4307.html "Open Access vs. NIH Back Access and Nature's Back-Sliding" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4312.html Ironic that apologists for NIH's flawed "public access" policy (see below) are citing Nature's Back-Sliding from Green to Pale-Green as one of the benefits of the NIH Policy. "Nature Back-Slides on Self-Archiving [Corrected] (2005)" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4311.html Pity also that NIH policy-makers still don't seem to realize that all their current objectives plus a great deal more would be achieved by: (1) *requiring* (not requesting) (2) *institutional* (not PubMedCentral) self-archiving, with PMC simply harvesting from the fundee's Institutional Repository, IR), (3) *immediately* upon acceptance (not within 12 months) along with the "keystroke" strategy of giving the NIH fundees the option, if they wish (for the 8% of journals that are still not green), of depositing the compulsory full-text in their own IR, but making only the metadata visible institution-externally, while emailing the eprint to any eprint-requesters (who of course see the metadata) for the 8% of journals that are still not green: infinitely preferable to a blanket embargo). NIH's PubMed Central can then harvest when it chooses, without holding everything else back by underwriting an embargo. Instead, apologists for the NIH Policy keep expounding the prominent, undeniable, and totally unnecessary flaws of its current version as if they were hidden virtues. Meanwhile, the waiting for OA goes on (and on)... Thank goodness things are looking far more promising and sensible in Europe (and perhaps soon Asia)! http://www.eprints.org/berlin3/outcomes.html http://libraries.csdl.ac.cn/Meeting/MeetingID.asp?MeetingID=7&MeetingMenuID=51 http://makeashorterlink.com/?G3C722F4B Stevan Harnad