[GOAL] Re: OA and NIH public access compliance and enforcement?
Hi all, I suspect compliance enforcement isn't such an issue for NIH because so many publishers deposit on behalf of their authors. It's one of the ways publishers have constructively engaged with the NIH on implementation of its open access policy. Elsevier has deposited manuscripts into PMC on behalf of authors since 2005, for example. With kind wishes, Alicia From: goal-bounces at eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] On Behalf Of Michael Eisen Sent: 25 April 2012 15:49 To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Re: OA and NIH public access compliance and enforcement? The NIH enforces the policy by requiring a PMC ID on every paper submitted with grant progress reports and renewals. It's actually fairly effective. On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: Hard to imagine how fundee compliance with NIH OA policy can be effectively enforced while: (1) Deposit can be done by either the fundee or the publisher (who is not bound by the grant's conditions) (2) Deposit must by directly in PubMed Central instead of the fundee's institutional repository (where the institution can monitor publication output and ensure compliance) Unlike the institution (which monitors its researchers' publication output and productivity) the funder is unaware of what and where papers are published, especially after peer review is done and the researcher is funded. (Final Reports come far too late.) Hence the natural enforcer for funder policy is of course the fundee's institution, which already casts an eager eagle eye on all phases of the all-important research application and funding process (because of a shared institutional interest in getting research funding). The publisher, in contrast, has every interest in deterring or delaying OA as much as possible. The researcher, meanwhile, is busy writing grant applications and conducting research, if funded. Publish-or-perish ensures that researchers publish, but only institutions and institutional mandates can ensure that the publications are made OA (especially if institutional repository deposit is designated as the sole mechanism for submitting research for annual institutional performance review). See http://bit.ly/institutionalOA Stevan Harnad On 2012-04-23, at 8:03 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote: > From: "Hansen, Dave" > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:28:06 + > > Does anyone on this list have an idea of how the NIH enforces its > public access policy? I recently had a conversation with someone who > has viewed several NIH non-compliance letters. She expressed some > consternation that, while letters sometimes go out about > non-compliance, there is no real force behind them and nothing that > effectively compels compliance. I couldn't find any more info from the > NIH itself. > > Does anyone have any idea how prevalent non-compliance is and how > frequently NIH takes actions to enforce the policy, and for those > library lawyers that I know lurk around on this list, who (if anyone) > would be able to contest non-enforcement by the NIH?* > > *I'm not trying to pick a fight. I'd just like to know who has the > right to do such a thing. > > - > > David R. Hansen > Digital Library Fellow > Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic > UC Berkeley School of Law > dhansen at law.berkeley.edu > (510) 643-8138 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL at eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Michael Eisen, Ph.D. Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley Elsevier Limited. Registered Office: The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom, Registration No. 1982084 (England and Wales). -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120425/9d1a0303/attachment-0001.html
[GOAL] Re: OA and NIH public access compliance and enforcement?
The NIH enforces the policy by requiring a PMC ID on every paper submitted with grant progress reports and renewals. It's actually fairly effective. On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: Hard to imagine how fundee compliance with NIH OA policy can be effectively enforced while: (1) Deposit can be done by either the fundee or the publisher (who is not bound by the grant's conditions) (2) Deposit must by directly in PubMed Central instead of the fundee's institutional repository (where the institution can monitor publication output and ensure compliance) Unlike the institution (which monitors its researchers' publication output and productivity) the funder is unaware of what and where papers are published, especially after peer review is done and the researcher is funded. (Final Reports come far too late.) Hence the natural enforcer for funder policy is of course the fundee's institution, which already casts an eager eagle eye on all phases of the all-important research application and funding process (because of a shared institutional interest in getting research funding). The publisher, in contrast, has every interest in deterring or delaying OA as much as possible. The researcher, meanwhile, is busy writing grant applications and conducting research, if funded. Publish-or-perish ensures that researchers publish, but only institutions and institutional mandates can ensure that the publications are made OA (especially if institutional repository deposit is designated as the sole mechanism for submitting research for annual institutional performance review). See http://bit.ly/institutionalOA Stevan Harnad On 2012-04-23, at 8:03 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote: > From: "Hansen, Dave" > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:28:06 + > > Does anyone on this list have an idea of how the NIH enforces its > public access policy? I recently had a conversation with someone who > has viewed several NIH non-compliance letters. She expressed some > consternation that, while letters sometimes go out about > non-compliance, there is no real force behind them and nothing that > effectively compels compliance. I couldnât find any more info from the > NIH itself. > > Does anyone have any idea how prevalent non-compliance is and how > frequently NIH takes actions to enforce the policy, and for those > library lawyers that I know lurk around on this list, who (if anyone) > would be able to contest non-enforcement by the NIH?* > > *Iâm not trying to pick a fight. Iâd just like to know who has the > right to do such a thing. > > - > > David R. Hansen > Digital Library Fellow > Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic > UC Berkeley School of Law > dhan...@law.berkeley.edu > (510) 643-8138 ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Michael Eisen, Ph.D. Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley [ Part 2: "Attached Text" ] ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[GOAL] Re: OA and NIH public access compliance and enforcement?
The NIH enforces the policy by requiring a PMC ID on every paper submitted with grant progress reports and renewals. It's actually fairly effective. On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Stevan Harnad wrote: > Hard to imagine how fundee compliance with NIH OA policy can be > effectively enforced while: > > (1) Deposit can be done by either the fundee or the publisher > (who is not bound by the grant's conditions) > > (2) Deposit must by directly in PubMed Central instead > of the fundee's institutional repository (where the institution > can monitor publication output and ensure compliance) > > Unlike the institution (which monitors its researchers' > publication output and productivity) the funder is unaware > of what and where papers are published, especially after > peer review is done and the researcher is funded. (Final > Reports come far too late.) > > Hence the natural enforcer for funder policy is of course the > fundee's institution, which already casts an eager eagle eye > on all phases of the all-important research application and > funding process (because of a shared institutional interest > in getting research funding). > > The publisher, in contrast, has every interest in deterring or > delaying OA as much as possible. > > The researcher, meanwhile, is busy writing grant applications > and conducting research, if funded. Publish-or-perish ensures > that researchers publish, but only institutions and institutional > mandates can ensure that the publications are made OA > (especially if institutional repository deposit is designated > as the sole mechanism for submitting research for annual > institutional performance review). > > See http://bit.ly/institutionalOA > > Stevan Harnad > > On 2012-04-23, at 8:03 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote: > > > From: "Hansen, Dave" > > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:28:06 + > > > > Does anyone on this list have an idea of how the NIH enforces its > > public access policy? I recently had a conversation with someone who > > has viewed several NIH non-compliance letters. She expressed some > > consternation that, while letters sometimes go out about > > non-compliance, there is no real force behind them and nothing that > > effectively compels compliance. I couldn?t find any more info from the > > NIH itself. > > > > Does anyone have any idea how prevalent non-compliance is and how > > frequently NIH takes actions to enforce the policy, and for those > > library lawyers that I know lurk around on this list, who (if anyone) > > would be able to contest non-enforcement by the NIH?* > > > > *I?m not trying to pick a fight. I?d just like to know who has the > > right to do such a thing. > > > > - > > > > David R. Hansen > > Digital Library Fellow > > Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic > > UC Berkeley School of Law > > dhansen at law.berkeley.edu > > (510) 643-8138 > > > ___ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL at eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > -- Michael Eisen, Ph.D. Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20120425/bc08d516/attachment.html
