On 2012-04-26, at 5:09 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote: > From: Michael Carroll <mcarr...@wcl.american.edu> > Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:12:56 -0400 > > Hi all, > > The interesting choice here is NIH's focus on the researcher when > the grantee is the institution. In the grant agreement, the > institution makes the promise to NIH that an article arising from NIH > funding will be posted to PubMed Central, even though fulfilling this > requirement requires researcher cooperation. > > While NIH currently is using the possible loss of future funding > to give researchers an incentive to apply, NIH would be well within > its rights to send back *any* application from the institution until > there's been full compliance on all past grants to the institution. > All for one and one for all? > > http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/nih/copyright.shtml
To monitor and ensure that its researchers' publication output is made OA, an institution needs a way to monitor its researchers' publication output: That's one of the main purposes of an institutional repository. And that's the one of the reasons NIH should mandate deposit in its fundees' institutional repository -- from which PubMed Central (and other institution-external repositories) can harvest it. Then institutions can enforce compliance with NIH's open access mandate (and are also motivated to adopt open access mandates of their own, for all their research output, not just the NIH-funded fraction). Stevan Harnad _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
