Re: Homer Simpson at the NIH

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Chuck:

All publishers of material based on grant-funded research have 
done this analysis.  They are planning for a shift in their 
operating environment.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hamaker, Charles" <cahamake@uncc.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 6:49 AM
Subject: RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH

> Joe, I wonder how much content publishers would forfeit if what 
> you imply below were acted on? Any bio-medical publishers with 
> estimates of how much of what they publish is from NIH funded 
> research?
>
> Chuck Hamaker
> Associate University Librarian Collections and Technical Services
> Atkins Library
> University of North Carolina Charlotte
> Charlotte, NC 28223
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Joseph J.
> Esposito
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 12:51 PM
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Homer Simpson at the NIH
>
> The LA Times editorial made me think of The Simpsons Movie. 
> When Bart tells Homer that "this is the worst thing that ever 
> happened to me," Homer's cheerful, paternal reply is, "It's the 
> worst thing that ever happened to you--so far!"  Yes, it can 
> get worse ...
>
> Of course taxpayer-funded research results should be made 
> available at no or marginal cost to the citizenry.  I'm a 
> citizen, too, and I support this, just as I support publishing 
> or posting requirements for any grant-funded research.  (All 
> universities should be doing this, too, by providing the 
> resources to their university presses.)  The problem is that 
> this is NOT what the NIH is proposing.  The NIH is not funding 
> the apparatus for publishing.  It hopes to "borrow" it from the 
> publishing industry, which has its own interests and 
> prerogatives.  This is not a moral argument but an economic 
> one. What the NIH lacks is the moral courage to stand up to its 
> economic situation.
>
> In an alternate universe, where the NIH acted thoughtfully and 
> responsibly, the NIH would fund and develop the means to review 
> and publish material based on NIH research.  The money for this 
> would come from other areas; it has to come from somewhere. 
> If someone, anyone, developed a way to take advantage of the 
> open access, peer-reviewed material (text-mining? authoring of 
> syntheses?), that's fine.
>
> The problem with the NIH plan is that the catch-and-release 
> publishing it relies on (exclusive publishing rights for 6 or 
> 12 months, open access thereafter) will inexorably undermine 
> the economics of the original publications, even if those 
> rights are temporarily exclusive. Older material has economic 
> value, even if that value is in building Web destination sites 
> that can be used to generate traffic for other revenue-based 
> services. Publishers will factor in the lost value of the older 
> material.
>
> Publishers will naturally (they already are) be thinking of 
> where best to put their capital to work.  Over time less money 
> will go into maintaining the current system; smaller 
> publishers, especially small not-for-profit publishers, will 
> suffer most. The overall costs of scholarly communications will 
> rise.  The NIH authorized repositories will exist, but be of 
> diminishing value. By analogy, any American taxpayer can go to 
> the IRS site for tax information, but most taxpayers have 
> learned to go elsewhere, to books, other commercial Web sites, 
> and accountants.
>
> To put this simply:  the question for a publisher is, Would you 
> rather make 10% working with NIH-sponsored work or 20% working 
> outside the NIH umbrella? The investment will move away from 
> the NIH and the system that the NIH astonishingly thinks will 
> persevere forever will becoming less valuable to everyone.
>
> But as Homer says, the worst is yet to come.
>
> Joe