Peter Suber wrote, in OA News : > I agree that [a Deposit Mandate plus the "email > eprint request" Button] would be a good fallback in the > (unlikely) event that the Conyers bill passes. > But I can't agree that it would "hasten universal > OA more effectively than the current NIH mandate"
There are three issues here, not one! (1) Replacing the current NIH mandate with DM if the current mandate is defeated. (2) Adding DM to the current NIH mandate even if it is not defeated. (3) And the question of what would have been the effect of adopting DM in the first place. On all three, I think the answer is very definitely that DM (whether added or substituted) would hasten universal OA more effectively. (And I actually think Peter would agree about all three of these; the seeming disagreement may be just a verbal one.) Note that what I said was that an NIH Deposit Mandate (Immediate Deposit, with optional Closed Access plus the "Almost-OA" Button) would hasten *universal* OA far more effectively than the current NIH (Delayed OA-Deposit) Mandate. I said *universal* OA because I was not referring merely to OA for NIH-funded research, nor to the effect of the NIH mandate only on NIH-funded research: It is far easier for other funders and institutions to reach agreement on adopting Deposit Mandates of their own (Immediate Deposit of all articles, with the option of Closed Access and the "email eprint request" Button during any publisher embargo) because that completely removes copyright concerns, publishers, and the publisher's lobby from the decision loop. For embargoed articles, DM is merely an internal record-keeping mandate, yet with the Button it can provide almost-OA -- and will almost certainly lead to full OA once the practice becomes universal. So the first reason an NIH DM would be (and would have been) more effective is that, being free of legal obstacles, it is universally adoptable. Many funders and even institutions have instead copied, or tried to copy, the NIH Embargoed OA Mandate (with deposit mandated only *after* the publisher OA embargo has elapsed). These legally encumbered mandates have either failed to be adopted elsewhere altogether, because of unresolved legal concerns (I know of many that have been under debate for years), or they have been adopted, cloning the NIH model, with the loss of the opportunity for Almost-OA during the embargoes (and an uncertainty about whether and when deposit actually takes place). That is a loss of any mandate at all, in the would-be mandates that failed to be adopted because of the avoidable copyright concerns, a loss of a good deal of Almost-OA during the embargo periods for the adopted mandates, and continuing delay in reaching universal OA, for which universal deposit is a necessary precondition! So, yes, the NIH mandate would have been more effective, both for NIH OA and for universal OA, if it had been a DM: It would have generated immediate Almost-OA for NIH and more DMs worldwide. DM can still be *added* to the NIH mandate now, whether or not the Conyers Bill passes. If Conyers fails, that will make NIH an Immediate DM plus Embargoed OA Mandate -- which is much better than just an Embargoed OA Mandate. If Conyers passes, then it will make NIH just an Immediate DM, which is still better than no mandate for NIH, still provides Almost-OA during and embargo, and is far more conducive to consensus for universal adoption. > The NIH mandate provides (or will soon provide) > OA to 100% of NIH-funded research, not OA to 63% and > almost-OA to 37%, If Conyers passes, then (as Peter agrees), DM is the right Plan B. But even if Conyers fails, why not add DM to the current NIH embargoed OA mandate, and have embargoed OA to 100% of NIH-funded research *plus* immediate almost-OA during the embargo (and a better mandate model for universal adoption)? > [Nor can I agree that] "there is no way to stop > [an NIH immediate DM plus the Button] legally". > ...if Congress wanted to, it could block closed-access > deposits too. Of course Congress can vote into law anything that the Supreme Court does not rule unconstitutional and the President does not veto. But it does seem a bit far-fetched to imagine either that Congress would make a law that NIH could not require the deposit of a copy of the publications it funds, for internal record-keeping purposes. Nor does it seem likely that Congress would make a law that researchers could no longer send reprints of their research to researchers requesting them, as they have been doing for a half century. > However, I would like to see the NIH add the email > request button even if the Conyers bill goes down > in flames. Then the policy would provide embargoed > OA to 100% of NIH-funded research, and almost-OA > during the embargo period. I think we are in complete agreement! Substitute DM + Button for the current NIH Mandate if Conyers fails, and add DM + Button even if it succeeds. (But that doesn't just mean the Button: It means adding the requirement to deposit immediately upon acceptance for publication.) The only thing missing from this agreement is the one additional (but crucial) further facilitator of universal adoption of DMs: The NIH should specify that the preferred mode of deposit should be to deposit the postrint in the author's Institutional Repository (if there is one) and port it automatically to NIH via the SWORD protocol. On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> wrote: Re: "Bill Would Block NIH Public Access Policy" (Science, 11 September) http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/911/1 Conyers Bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h6845: Plan B for NIH Public Access Mandate (And It's Stronger Than Plan A!): A Deposit Mandate I hope the Conyers Bill, resulting from the publisher lobby's attempt to overturn the NIH Public Access Mandate, will not succeed. But in case it does, I would like to recommend making a small but far-reaching modification in the NIH mandate and its implementation that will effectively immunize it against any further publisher attempts to overturn it on legal grounds. And this Plan B will actually help hasten universal OA more effectively than the current mandate: (1) NIH should mandate deposit of the refereed final draft of all NIH-funded research, immediately upon acceptance for publication. http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/136-guid.html (2) But access to that deposited draft need only be made Open Access when there is no publisher embargo on making it Open Access; otherwise it may be made Closed Access. (3) Open Access means that the full text of the deposited draft is freely accessible to anyone, webwide, immediately. (4) Closed Access means that the full text of the deposited draft is visible and accessible only to the depositor and the depositor's employer and funder, for internal record-keeping and grant-fulfillment purposes. (Publishers have no say whatsoever in institutional and funder internal record-keeping.) (5) For all deposits, however, both Open Access and Closed Access, the deposited article's metadata (author, title, journal, date. etc.) are Open Access, hence visible and accessible to anyone, webwide. (6) Now the essence of this strategy: NIH should also implement the "Email Eprint Request" Button, so that any would-be user, webwide, who reaches a link to a Closed Access article, can insert their email address in a box, indicate that a single copy of the postprint is being requested for research or health purposes, and click. http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/274-guid.html (7) The eprint request is then automatically transmitted immediately by the repository software to the author of the article, who receives an email with a URL that can then be clicked if the author wishes to have the repository software automatically email one individual copy of that eprint to that individual requester. (8) This is not Open Access (OA). But functionally, it is almost-OA. (9) Many journals (63%) already endorse immediate OA. http://romeo.eprints.org/stats.php (10) Closed Access plus the Button will provide almost-OA for the remaining 37%. (11) That means an NIH Deposit Mandate guarantees either immediate OA (63%) or almost-OA (37%) for 100% of NIH-funded research. (12) In addition, an NIH Deposit Mandate will encourage universities in the US and worldwide to adopt Deposit Mandates too, for all of their research article output, not just NIH-funded biomedical research output. http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html (13) The spread of such Deposit Mandates across institutions and funders worldwide will inevitably lead to universal OA for all research output eventually, once the mandates ensure the universal practice of immediate deposit. (14) In addition, because it makes the almost-OA Button even more powerful and easier to implement -- NIH should stipulate that the preferred locus of deposit is the author's own Institutional Repository, which can then export the deposit to PubMed Central using the automatized SWORD protocol. http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/repositories/digirep/index/SWORD The fact is (and everyone will see this clearly in hindsight) that, all along, the online medium itself has made OA a foregone conclusion for research publications. There is no way to stop it legally. It is only technological short-sightedness that is making publishers and OA advocates alike imagine that the outcome is a somehow a matter of law and legislation. It is not, and never has been. It is only because we have been taking an obsolete, paper-based view of it all that we have not realized that when authors wish it to be so, the Web itself has made it no longer possible to prevent authors from freely distributing their own writings, one way or the other. There is no law against an author giving away individual copies of his own writing. And NIH need only mandate that authors deposit their (published research journal) writings: giving them away for free can be left to the individual author. The eventual outcome is obvious, optimal and inevitable. I strongly urge OA advocates to united under this back-up strategy. It will allow us to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. Stevan Harnad http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/
