[GOAL] Re: OA and NIH public access compliance and enforcement?

[Michael Eisen]

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 <harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk>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" <drhansen at email.unc.edu>
> > Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:28:06 +0000
> >
> > 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