From a blog posting by Stephen Meyer earlier today: "Perhaps the most frustrating thing about the American Association of Publishers' objections to the recent NIH proposal to require work funded by the NIH to be deposited in PubMed Central is AAP's refusal to address a critical issue. Publishers are trying to assume monopolistic copyright privileges over works they are not willing to fully fund themselves. This would be analogous to a landscaping company trying to charge for access to a public park after the city outsourced some of its maintenance work. The AAP does not own the content and they will not address the issue."
(PS: Let's anticipate an AAP objection: But facilitating peer review is much more important for research literature than landscaping is for a park. Granted. But what follows? That publishers who didn't fund the research, didn't conduct the research, and didn't write up the research should control access to the results?)
Posted by
Peter Suber at 9/19/2004 04:56:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
