Re: Critique of STM Critique of NIH Proposal (fwd)

[Heather Morrison <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>]

On 21-Nov-04, at 1:29 PM, Dr. James J. O'Donnell wrote:

> The item cited below makes this point repeatedly:
>
> 	"To repeat, what is being proposed is not an alternative business
> 	model but that access to journal articles reporting the results of
> 	NIH-funded research should be supplemented with free public online
> 	access for all those would-be users who cannot afford paid access.
> Do I interpret this correctly as meaning that *only* those who cannot
> afford paid access should be given free access?  On the model of
> proposals to reform U.S. health care?  That's very different from what
> I've been understanding as Open Access, but interesting to explore.  
> There seems to be progress in that direction:
>
> 	http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/develop.shtml
The idea is to provide free access to everyone, not just those who cannot
afford it.  Worthy as the Developing Nations Initiatives are, they do not
open up access as fully as open access per se.

For example, in some cases (such as India) a country that is eligible for
free accessibility based on low per-capita income, is excluded from some
of these programs because there are some institutions which can afford to
pay.

Then, too, many of the products offered for free to the poorest, are not
that accessible to many people even in the wealthiest countries.  This is
true even of products that are quite modestly priced - no library can
afford to subscribe to everything.

To sum, the Developing Nations Initiatives works well for some people.  
Open Access works for everyone.

best,

Heather G. Morrison
BC Electronic Library Network
Email:  heatherm@eln.bc.ca