RE: NIH Public Access Policy: is the funding for OA already there?

["Donald Waters" <DJW@mellon.org>]

Friends,

The "possibility of redeploying some of the funds available for 
'indirect costs' from library subscriptions and site licenses to 
supporting open access initiatives" is frequently mentioned on 
this list.  It seems to me to be a very glib assertion that 
ignores the complexity of university organization and budgeting, 
a point that Jim O'Donnell and others have made in a previous 
postings to this list.  The assertion nevertheless keeps arising 
and it may be time to test the likelihood of the "possibility."

I would be very interested in learning of research universities 
whose presidents or provosts in conjunction with their library 
and faculty, are conducting or would be willing to conduct 
(possibly with foundation support), a serious and intensive study 
of the feasibility and desirability of a massive reallocation of 
institutional funds to support open access.  Would members of 
this list identify such institutions and an individual whom I 
could contact for more information either by a posting to this 
list or by replying directly to me?

Thank you very much.

Don Waters
Program Officer, Scholarly Communications
The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
djw@mellon.org

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 4:58 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: NIH Public Access Policy: is the funding for full OA already
there?

The funding for full open access publishing to NIH-funded 
research may already be there, within existing NIH grant 
provisions.

NIH is already spending $30 million per year in publication 
expenses, such as page charges, and allows for "indirect costs" 
which can be used for such items as library subscriptions and 
site licenses.

Let's look at what can be done just with the $30 million per year 
already spent on publication charges.  About 60-65,000 articles 
were published based on NIH research in 2003.  If all of these 
were published as open access, less than half would incur article 
processing fees (as indicated by an ALPSP study).  If the $30 
million per year were used to fund article processing fees for 
half of NIH- related articles, 32,500, the average available per 
article would be $923.  That is less than what is charged by some 
open access publishers, it is true; but it is also more than what 
is charged by others.

This does not account for the possibility of redeploying some of 
the funds available for "indirect costs" from library 
subscriptions and site licenses, to supporting open access 
initiatives.  In addition to enhancing dissemination - and hence 
advances of research - there are economic benefits, too.  An 
NIH-funded article that is openly accessible avoids costs for 
future NIH researchers building on what has already been learned, 
for example.

Librarians are ideally situated to lead in this transition.

For more analysis and links, please see by blogpost, NIH Public 
Access Policy:  is the funding for full OA already there? 
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2007/08/nih-public-access-policy- 
is-funding-for.html

Thanks to William Walsh on Liblicense for pointing to the 
relevant section of the NIH policy: 
http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/ListArchives/0708/msg00021.html

Any opinion expressed in this e-mail is that of the author alone, 
and does not reflect the opinion or policy of BC Electronic 
Library Network or Simon Fraser University Library.

Heather Morrison, MLIS
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com