With NIH Policy, So Far Not So Good?
In its statement coinciding with last week’s rollout of the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) public access plan, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) and the Alliance for Taxpayer Access (ATA) reiterated that the policy was a “positive step” but also voiced concern that the policy’s voluntary nature and discretionary timeframe may hinder the progress NIH director Elias Zerhouni anticipated. In announcing the policy, Zerhouni said he expected that few publishers would choose to keep their work embargoed for the longest period suggested–12 months. However, several journal publishers, including Nature and most recently Oxford University Press, have announced policy changes that require long embargoes.
“It’s disappointing to see journals announce their policies for NIH-funded authors,” said Peter Suber, who writes the SPARC Open Access Newsletter. “In each such case so far, journals are resisting the NIH request for public access ‘as soon as possible’ after publication and demanding embargoes of six or 12 months. This will slow down medical research and violate the NIH’s own criteria for the policy.” Rick Johnson, the soon-to-be-departing executive director of SPARC and a founder of the ATA, said SPARC will demand change if the current trend continues. “If participation is weak or access is delayed too long, as will soon be evident, NIH must act to strengthen the policy and achieve its goals.”
[Library Journal Academic Newswire (TM), May 10, 2005]
