[LINK] US: Public Access to Federally Funded Research: Implementation

[Roger Clarke]

At 2:52 PM +1100 11/12/09, Marghanita da Cruz wrote that Whitehouse wrote:
>> 1. Timing. At what point in time should peer-reviewed papers be made
public via a public access policy relative to the date a publisher releases
the final version? 

The PrePrint(s) should have been available from an early stage.

The PostPrint should be available once it's created.

Neither should be deferred based on the publisher's release date.


>> 2. Version. What version of the paper should be made public under a
public access policy (e.g., the author’s peer-reviewed manuscript or the
final published version)?  

At least the Preprints that the author uses to solicit comments, and
strongly preferably the PostPrint (i.e. as submitted to the publisher).

If the above are deposited in appropriate repository/ies, the availability
of the Publisher's Version without price or permission barriers is much
less critical.

(Note that a majority of journal publishers and journals permit at least
PrePrints and by now probably PostPrints as well.  There may be
constraints, depending on the strategy and/or accidental wording of each
particular copyright assignment and licence-form.  For example, some
publishers are, or seem to be, accepting of university repositories but 
biased against subject-matter / disciplinary repositories;  and some,
probably accidentally, may exclude authors' own repositories).


>> 3. Mandatory v. Voluntary. The NIH mandatory policy was enacted after a
voluntary policy at the agency failed to generate high levels of
participation. 
>>Are there other approaches to increasing participation that would have
advantages over mandatory participation?

Unfortunately, none that work well.


>> 4. Other. What other structural characteristics of a public access
policy ought to be taken into account to best accommodate the needs and
interests of authors, primary and secondary publishers, libraries,
universities, the federal government, users of scientific literature and
the public?

That's analysed in some detail in:

Clarke R. (2005)  'A Proposal for an Open Content Licence for Research
Paper (Pr)ePrints' First Monday 10, 8 (August 2005), at
http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue10_8/clarke/index.html, PrePrint at
http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/PrePrLic.html

Clarke R. & Kingsley D.A. (2008) 'e-Publishing's Impacts on Journals and
Journal Articles' Journal of Internet Commerce 7,1 (March 2008) 120-151,
PrePrint at http://www.rogerclarke.com/EC/ePublAc.html


>> We invite your comments and in particular encourage you to be specific
in your thoughts and proposals...
><http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/10/policy-forum-public-access-federally-funded-research-implementation>

Okay, I'll post the above.

Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/
			             
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                   Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/ 

Visiting Professor in the Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre      Uni of NSW
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University


--
Email Powered by Apex Internet (www.apex.net.au)