<div class="gmail_extra">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. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Stevan Harnad <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk" target="_blank">harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hard to imagine how fundee compliance with NIH OA policy can be<br>
effectively enforced while:<br>
<br>
(1) Deposit can be done by either the fundee or the publisher<br>
(who is not bound by the grant's conditions)<br>
<br>
(2) Deposit must by directly in PubMed Central instead<br>
of the fundee's institutional repository (where the institution<br>
can monitor publication output and ensure compliance)<br>
<br>
Unlike the institution (which monitors its researchers'<br>
publication output and productivity) the funder is unaware<br>
of what and where papers are published, especially after<br>
peer review is done and the researcher is funded. (Final<br>
Reports come far too late.)<br>
<br>
Hence the natural enforcer for funder policy is of course the<br>
fundee's institution, which already casts an eager eagle eye<br>
on all phases of the all-important research application and<br>
funding process (because of a shared institutional interest<br>
in getting research funding).<br>
<br>
The publisher, in contrast, has every interest in deterring or<br>
delaying OA as much as possible.<br>
<br>
The researcher, meanwhile, is busy writing grant applications<br>
and conducting research, if funded. Publish-or-perish ensures<br>
that researchers publish, but only institutions and institutional<br>
mandates can ensure that the publications are made OA<br>
(especially if institutional repository deposit is designated<br>
as the sole mechanism for submitting research for annual<br>
institutional performance review).<br>
<br>
See <a href="http://bit.ly/institutionalOA" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/institutionalOA</a><br>
<br>
Stevan Harnad<br>
<br>
On 2012-04-23, at 8:03 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote:<br>
<br>
> From: "Hansen, Dave" <<a href="mailto:drhansen@email.unc.edu">drhansen@email.unc.edu</a>><br>
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:28:06 +0000<br>
><br>
> Does anyone on this list have an idea of how the NIH enforces its<br>
> public access policy? I recently had a conversation with someone who<br>
> has viewed several NIH non-compliance letters. She expressed some<br>
> consternation that, while letters sometimes go out about<br>
> non-compliance, there is no real force behind them and nothing that<br>
> effectively compels compliance. I couldn’t find any more info from the<br>
> NIH itself.<br>
><br>
> Does anyone have any idea how prevalent non-compliance is and how<br>
> frequently NIH takes actions to enforce the policy, and for those<br>
> library lawyers that I know lurk around on this list, who (if anyone)<br>
> would be able to contest non-enforcement by the NIH?*<br>
><br>
> *I’m not trying to pick a fight. I’d just like to know who has the<br>
> right to do such a thing.<br>
><br>
> -----<br>
><br>
> David R. Hansen<br>
> Digital Library Fellow<br>
> Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic<br>
> UC Berkeley School of Law<br>
> <a href="mailto:dhansen@law.berkeley.edu">dhansen@law.berkeley.edu</a><br>
> <a href="tel:%28510%29%20643-8138" value="+15106438138">(510) 643-8138</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
GOAL mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:GOAL@eprints.org">GOAL@eprints.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal" target="_blank">http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Michael Eisen, Ph.D.<br>Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute<br>Associate Professor, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology<br>University of California, Berkeley<br>
</div>