Dear Andrew,

I am a scientist who makes a living publishing peer-reviewed articles. So, I am more than a little embarassed to admit that I don't understand what the disagreement is here. Can you please use your considerable simplification skills to illuminate this? Can you give an example of something that is allowed now that won't be allowed if the proposed change to NIH policy goes thru?

Maybe I am just confused about what "released to the public" means. For example, I spend a lot of time reading research papers "at the library" over the Internet. I have to log in and give my password. Is that still considered "released to the public"? I think the university pays a lot for that access now. Is that access going to become free for all?

Thanks!

The process if science is an epistemology, or organized production of knowledge. As it is practiced now, it is a group or community effort which requires input from all interested parties. It is a premise then that all parties should have access to the process. In the medical field, in which the NIH is primarily interested, interested parties may be practicing physicians who may for example may be located in rural Nebraska, not a university campus. Given the level of current technology, there is no reason to exclude these people from government funded research that is relevant to them. Many agricultural issues are by their nature, of interst to people in remote places.

Large publishers like Elsevier also publish a large number of text books. ( Harcourt, Pierson ). Should Elsevier exclusively own the right to publish images and data that were produced at publish expense. Does Elsevier become the "owner" of the product of these particular products of public funded epistemology? Most epistemological models for the production of scientific research does not have "owner of the result" as a component of the model. In other words, the knowledge that is contributed is public property.

I have seen researchers beg for reprints of articles which they produced. Beyond an initial courtesy stack, Researshers have to guard copies that they may be given.

One would assume that a researcher would have access to articles they wrote and published. Actually, there are many reasons why a researcher may not have access ( for copy purposes) to articles they wrote. They may have been on a team of numerous scientists, the lead of which was at another institution, they have moved which most researchers do after they graduate, or they may have gotten published in a journal that was their second or third choice.

A proactive stance on the part of researchers can drive the preponderance of manuscripts into open access. My collaborators and I have decided to publish only in open access journals, or journals that release articles no more than six months after publication. We are actively avoiding journals that never release their back-issues. Biomed Central and PloS both have a series of good open access journals on a variety of topics. Their citation rates are solid and increasing. Some, like PLoS Biology, are becoming top-tier journals. Eventually, outfits like Elsevier will be forced by the market to release their back issues because they won't be getting enough manuscripts to fill their journals. It means some solid and established journals may wither on the vine, but that decision is up to the publishers. Also, encourage your institutions to join BioMed Central and PLoS.

It is wonderful that some researchers are making use of open access journals, but in principle, the most prestigious journals in a particular field are not open access. Nor is it advantageous for researchers to avoid the most appropriate journal for their article. The solution is fairly simple. A copyright belongs with the writer unless a document is produced under contract and it is understood that the supporter of the production is to retain all copyrights. The NIH merely needs to state that they own the copyright of all material that they produce. Then, instead of publishers suing the government for copyright violation, the NIH can sue publishers for copyright violation.

Most scientific articles are not news items in their raw forms. For example, Science and Nature usually carry companion articles for basic research articles, in order that more people understand their rationale and significance. With today's technology, it would be easy for publishers to retain copyrights for the analytical articles that they produce, and yet open up access to research produced at public expense, and which will presumably become the basis for the epistemological process.

Responding to wingspan_too: "The NIH merely needs to state that they own the copyright of all material that they produce."

First, there is no copyright on any work produced by an agent of the US Government. The work becomes public domain as it is produced with public money.

Second, the issue is, in fact, not about copyright at all. The issue is about who has the right to access this information, and at what cost?

For an article whose research is funded by the government but whose peer-review costs are not, who should have access? Are the publishing fees of a private industry more important than the publicly-funded cost of the research? How can the publisher recoup that money they've paid? How does the public benefit from research their tax dollars have paid for? Is delaying free public access to that research and allowing a publisher to maintain exclusivity of that research for a certain period of time (6 months? 12 months?) a sufficient enough benefit for the publisher?

Unfortunately, the questions all revolve around money. The potential benefits of the research itself and its availability to the community seem to have become secondary in the conversation.