[ The following text is in the "Windows-1252" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
If that publisher seeks to profit from NIH's gratuitous insistence on
institution-external deposit, by treating PMC as a 3rd-party
free-loader or rival publisher, hence legally requiring permission to
re-publish, I would say that NIH drew that upon itself.
Nonsense. Stevan is simply trying to opportunistically use this
unfair charge by APA as a wedge to force a change in NIH policy.
There is nothing wrong with the NIH wanting their funded research to
be deposited in PubMed Central. This is self-archiving. If
researchers want to deposit it elsewhere too - in institutional
repositories, for example - then good. All that will happen to APA
journals is that NIH funded researchers will realise that other
journals will do for free what APA is charging them $2500 to do. Then
either APA will lose credibility or it will back down.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: SPARC Open Access Forum [mailto:SPARC-OAForum_at_arl.org]On
Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 16 July 2008 13:21
To: SPARC Open Access Forum
Subject: [SOAF] In Defense of the American Psychological
Association's Green OA Policy
** Cross-Posted **
In Defense of the American Psychological Association's Green OA
Policy
____________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY: So the American Psychological
Association (APA) is trying to charge $2500
per article to fulfill NIH's Green OA
mandate by proxy-depositing in PubMed
Central on the author's behalf? So maybe if
NIH had sensibly mandated depositing in the
author's own Institutional Repository (IR),
this awkward problem wouldn't have come up?
Like the majority of journals, APA
journals are Green on authors self-archiving
in their own IRs. There's still time to fix
the NIH mandate so good sense can prevail...
____________________________________________________________________________
Although it looks bad on the face of it -- the American
Psychological Association (APA) charging the author's
institution and/or research grant $2500, not for Gold OA
publishing, but for depositing the author's refereed
final draft in PubMed Central (PMC) on the author's
behalf ("proxy self-archiving"), in order to fulfill
the NIH mandate -- things are not always as they seem.
There is no culprit in this nonsense, but if I had to
pinpoint its provenance, it would be the foolish form in
which the NIH -- despite relentlessly repeated advice and
reasons to the contrary -- insisted on drafting its
policy:
To cut to the quick, there is no earthly reason NIH
should insist on direct deposit in PMC. The mandate
should be (and should all along have been) to deposit in
the author's own Institutional Repository (IR). PMC can
then harvest the metadata and link to the IR-deposited
full-text itself from there.
APA (and the majority of other journals) -- for reasons
they would have found it very hard to justify flouting --
have long given their green lights to immediate deposit
(no delay, no embargo, and of course no fee) in the
author's own IR:
____________________________________________________________________________
APA Policy on Posting Articles on the
Internet
Update effective June 1, 2002
Authors of articles published in APA journals
may post a copy of the final manuscript, as a
word processing, PDF, or other type file, on
their Web site or their employer's server
after it is accepted for publication. The
following conditions would prevail:
? The posted article must carry
an APA copyright notice and
include a link to the APA journal
home page.
? Further, the posted article
must include the following
statement: "This article may not
exactly replicate the final
version published in the APA
journal. It is not the copy of
record."
? APA does not permit archiving
with any other non-APA
repositories.
? APA does not provide electronic
copies of the APA published
version for this purpose, and
authors are not permitted to scan
in the APA published version.
____________________________________________________________________________
To repeat, a publisher that is Green on immediate OA
self-archiving in the author's own IR is squarely on the
side of the angels. (If that publisher seeks to profit
from NIH's gratuitous insistence on institution-external
deposit, by treating PMC as a 3rd-party free-loader or
rival publisher, hence legally requiring permission to
re-publish, I would say that NIH drew that upon itself.
As noted many times, that technicality does not work with
an author's own institution.)
And it is remediable: Simply revise the NIH mandate to
require institutional IR deposit of the accepted final
draft, immediately upon acceptance, with a cap on the
permissible embargo length, if any. That is the sensible
policy -- and nature will take care of the rest, with
universal OA just around the corner.
A Simple Way to Optimize the NIH Public
Access Policy (Oct 2004)
THE FEEDER AND THE DRIVER: Deposit
Institutionally, Harvest Centrally (Jan 2008)
Optimize the NIH Mandate Now: Deposit
Institutionally, Harvest Centrally (Jan 2008)
How To Integrate University and Funder Open
Access Mandates (Mar 2008)
NIH Invites Recommendations on How to
Implement and Monitor Compliance with Its OA
Self-Archiving Mandate (Apr 2008)
Institutional Repositories vs Subject/Central
Repositories (Jun 2008)
Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
This email has been scanned by Postini.
For more information please visit
http://www.postini.com
Received on Fri Jul 18 2008 - 13:55:33 BST