No subject

Professor Steven Hyman, Provost of Harvard, the first US University to =
mandate=A0Open Access, has submitted such a spot-on, point for point =
response=A0to President Obama's=A0Request for Information=A0on Public =
Access Policy that if his words are heeded, the beneficiaries will not =
only be US research progress and the US tax-paying public, by whom US =
research is funded and for whose benefit it is conducted, but research =
progress and its public benefits planet-wide, as US policy is globally =
reciprocated.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2010/01/22/373/

Reproduced below are just a few of the highlights of Professor Hyman's =
response. Every one of the highlights has a special salience, and =
attests to the minute attention and keen insight into the subtle details =
of Open Access that went into the preparation of this invaluable set of =
recommendations.

[Hash-marks (#) indicate three extremely minor points on which the =
response could be ever so slightly clarified -- see end.]

"The public access policy should (1) be mandatory, not voluntary, (2) =
use the shortest practical embargo period, no longer than six months,
(3) apply to the final version of the author's peer-reviewed manuscript, =
as opposed to the published version, unless the publisher consents to =
provide public access to the published version, (4) [# require deposit =
of the manuscript in a suitable open repository=A0#] immediately upon =
acceptance for publication, where it would remain "dark" until the =
embargo period expired, and (5) avoid copyright problems by =
[##=A0requiring federal grantees, when publishing articles based on =
federally funded research, to retain the right to give the relevant =
agency a non-exclusive license to distribute a public-access copy of his =
or her peer-reviewed manuscript=A0##]...

"If publishers believe they cannot afford to allow copies of their =
articles to be released under a public-access policy, they need not =
publish federally funded researchers. To date, however, it appears that =
no publishers have made that decision in response to the NIH policy. =
Hence, federally funded authors remain free to submit their work to the =
journals of their choice. Moreover, public access gives authors a much =
larger audience and much greater impact...

"If the United States extends a public-access mandate across the federal =
government, then lay citizens with no interest in reading this =
literature for themselves will benefit indirectly because researchers =
will benefit directly.... That is the primary problem for which public =
access is the solution...

"It doesn't matter whether many lay readers, or few, are able to read =
peer-reviewed research literature or have reason to do so. But even if =
there are many, the primary beneficiaries of a public-access policy will =
be professional researchers, who constitute the intended audience for =
this literature and who depend on access to it for their own work....

"Among the metrics for measuring success, I can propose these: the =
compliance rate (how many articles that the policy intends to open up =
have actually been opened up); the number of downloads from the =
public-access repositories; and the number of citations to the =
public-access articles. As we use different metrics, we must accept that =
[###=A0we will never have an adequate control group: a set of articles =
on similar topics, of similar quality, for which there is no public =
access###]....

________________________________

Three suggestions for clarifying the minor points indicated by the =
hash-marks (#):

[#"require deposit of the manuscript in a suitable open repository" #]

(add: "preferably the fundee's own institutional repository")

[##"requiring federal grantees, when publishing articles based on =
federally funded research, to retain the right to give the relevant =
agency a non-exclusive license to distribute a public-access copy of his =
or her peer-reviewed manuscript" ##]

(add: "the rights retention and license are desirable and welcome, but =
not necessary if the publisher already endorses making the deposit =
publicly accessible immediately, or after the allowable embargo
period")

[### "we will never have an adequate control group [for measuring the =
mandate's success]: a set of articles on similar topics, of similar =
quality, for which there is no public access" ###]

(add: "but closed-access articles published in the same journal and year =
as mandatorily open-access articles do provide an approximate matched =
control baseline for comparison")


Stevan Harnad

--
_____________________________________
Powered by www.kitware.com

Visit other Kitware open-source projects at =
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html

Kitware offers ITK Training Courses, for more information visit:
http://www.kitware.com/products/protraining.html

Please keep messages on-topic and check the ITK FAQ at:
http://www.itk.org/Wiki/ITK_FAQ

Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://www.itk.org/mailman/listinfo/insight-users

-- 
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential, copyright and or privileged material, and are for the use of the intended addressee only. If you are not the intended addressee or an authorised recipient of the addressee please notify us of receipt by returning the e-mail and do not use, copy, retain, distribute or disclose the information in or attached to the e-mail.
Any opinions expressed within this e-mail are those of the individual and not necessarily of Diamond Light Source Ltd. 
Diamond Light Source Ltd. cannot guarantee that this e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses and we cannot accept liability for any damage which you may sustain as a result of software viruses which may be transmitted in or with the message.
Diamond Light Source Limited (company no. 4375679). Registered in England and Wales with its registered office at Diamond House, Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0DE, United Kingdom