RE: Homer Simpson at the NIH

["Hamaker, Charles" <cahamake@uncc.edu>]

But there still isn't any evidence that free access to published 
articles outside the journal impacts journal subscription base. 
In my experience with researchers, for citation purposes they 
must have access to the original article. Would citation of the 
NIH copy be sufficient for documentation purposes in an article? 
Would norms of citation change that much? I can't believe it 
would be sufficient for that purpose. If it can't be substituted 
for the actual journal article, where's the competition with the 
original. Or am I misunderstanding something fundamental about 
the proposal? The notification use of the article gets enhanced, 
the citation stays with the original-no? Or are publishers 
arguing that for citation purposes the NIH copy will be 
sufficient?

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: Friday, August 03, 2007 12:46 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Homer Simpson at the NIH

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