Integrating Funder and University Open Access Mandates

[Stevan Harnad <harnad@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

Forwarding excerpts from an important exchange with Michael Eisen
about NIH Policy on the American Scientist Open Access Forum

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:01:42 -0400
From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum@GMAIL.COM>
To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM@LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG

On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Michael Eisen <mbeisen@lbl.gov> 
wrote:

> I would like to shift the discussion a bit to something a bit 
> more practical. Now that the NIH policy is in place, how can we 
> most effectively leverage it to advance open access?

...How can we most effectively leverage NIH policy to advance 
open access most effectively -- across disciplines and 
institutions, globally:

   [A]dd IR deposit with automated export to PMC as the preferred
   Method of deposit.

This is not a change in policy, just a change in an 
implementational detail: http://publicaccess.nih.gov/

> I have been trying here at the University of California to do 
> just this by proposing that the University:
>
> a) require author deposition in an institutional archive... c) 
> handle the deposition of material from the IR to PMC (which 
> may, or may not, require additional steps)

That's it! And what's needed to facilitate it -- not just at UC 
but worldwide -- is for NIH to add this as its preferred Method 
of deposit (as an addition to the other 4 Methods ): Deposit via 
IR and export to NIH: http://publicaccess.nih.gov/

> b) require that authors amend copyright agreements with 
> publishers to not only allow deposition in the IR, but to allow 
> redistribution and reuse of the content (so, for example, the 
> full-text could be ingested into PMC, thereby satisfying the 
> NIH mandate)

This could be added to the Harvard mandate, with optional 
opt-out, as now -- as long as the Harvard mandate's own small but 
likewise fundamental flaw is also fixed, which is:

   to add a mandatory immediate-deposit clause, with no opt-out,
   but with the option to set access to that deposit as Closed
   Access (plus the Button) in cases where the author opts out of
   the  rights-retention clause.

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/364-guid.html

Then the combination of (1) the upgraded NIH policy model and (2) 
the upgraded Harvard policy model would be the optimal model for 
emulation by both funders and institutions worldwide, and the 
most likely to maximize both OA mandate growth and OA growth 
across all disciplines and institutions globally.

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/369-guid.html

> ...I'm going to keep trying and would love some thoughts from 
> the group about HOW to do this... and what other steps we might 
> take make this a teachable/actionable moment.

Lobby for (1) the addition of the preferred IR deposit + export 
Method to the four current NIH implementation Methods and (2) for 
the addition of the enhanced rights-retention clause with opt-out 
plus the immediate-deposit clause without-opt out to the current 
Harvard mandate model.

Both of these small but extremely consequential changes are 
teachable, actionable, practical, and politically feasible, and 
many other OA advicates can work toward promoting the same two 
points worldwide.

Above all, never resign yourself to "it ain't gonna happen for 
both practical and political reasons."

> There are some interesting threads in the discussion about 
> whether the NIH should have mandated deposition into 
> institutional archives. But the discussion is really kind of 
> pointless, because, as we like to say in these parts "it ain't 
> gonna happen" - for both practical and political reasons.

If we had been ready to resign ourselves to "it ain't gonna 
happen for both practical and political reasons," a lot of the OA 
developments about which people were skeptical, pessimistic or 
opposed in the past decade and a half would never have happened.

Since what is at issue is not a change in the NIH policy but 
merely a tiny implementational detail -- adding a further Method 
of deposit to NIH's list (preferential deposit via automated IR 
export), along the very lines you are proposing for UC below -- 
at no loss to anyone or anything, and with great promise of gain 
in global OA growth, it is certainly not pointless to keep trying 
to get an otherwise splendid NIH policy, with a needless 
implementation flaw, fixed.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html