ERIKA CHECK Both sides of the open-access debate anxious about potential policy changes.
[WASHINGTON] The
US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has cancelled a briefing on the
final version of its new policy for open access to scientific
literature — leaving the plan's supporters and opponents anxious about
what happens next. On 10 January, officials at the biomedical research agency alerted
reporters and other interested parties that the NIH would unveil its
open-access policy the next day. But that same evening, they abruptly
cancelled the announcement, and declined to say when it will be
rescheduled. The plan, whose progress has been followed avidly by scientific
publishers and many researchers, has already been outlined by NIH
director, Elias Zerhouni. He has written that the agency will request,
but not require, that NIH-funded researchers submit the final,
peer-reviewed version of their publications to the NIH. The agency
would then make the manuscripts freely available after a specified time. Zerhouni has previously said that the papers would be made public on
the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central website no earlier
than six months after the date of publication (E. A. Zerhouni Science
306, 1895; 2004). But multiple sources briefed on the new version of
the plan last week say that the date has now changed to 12 months
post-publication. Sources close to Congress and the NIH speculated that the White
House had scuttled the NIH announcement over concerns that the issue
would complicate the confirmation hearings of Mike Leavitt, whom
President George Bush has nominated as health secretary. Those hearings
were set to be held on 18 and 19 January. But some questioned this
explanation, which wasn't officially confirmed. This has left each side
of the open-access debate worrying that the policy may now be revised
in favour of their opponents. "Obviously the policy could change — we've certainly heard that it
may," says Barbara Meredith, a vice-president at the Association of
American Publishers, which opposes early, open release of all research
findings. "The fact that they've postponed the announcement gives us concern,"
says Emily Sheketoff of the American Library Association, which
supports quick, open access to literature. Sheketoff worries that her
opponents may now influence the policy. The NIH "is not waiting to hear
more from us", she frets. "It is waiting to hear more from them." |
<<inline: spacer.gif>>
-- www.e-laser.org Laser@inventati.org