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

[Stevan Harnad]

On 2012-04-26, at 5:09 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:

> From: Michael Carroll <mcarroll at 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