The Association of American Publishers (AAP) issued a press release today on the NIH public-access policy. Excerpt: 'Publishers invest millions of dollars to support peer review, editing, abstracting, indexing, distribution, archiving, searching, access, and innovation. The NIH must avoid duplicating those efforts - otherwise taxpayers will truly "pay twice" for redundant versions of information or imitative platforms and tools. We call upon the NIH to work closely with publishers in the rollout of its public access policy. As the NIH goes forward with its plan, it must be careful to distinguish a professional and scholarly publishing environment that consistently delivers excellence, integrity, and innovation from one in which "free" access is subsidized through regulation. NIH fostering immediate free public access to content would risk undermining free market investments and models that have proven essential to authors and researchers.'
(PS: Two quick replies. (1) If letting private-sector publishers be the sole distributors of publicly-funded research means that taxpayers have to pay high prices to read it, then it's a bad deal and the government has a responsibility to fix it, even if the private-sector publishers are excellent, innovative, and heavily-invested. (2) The NIH's distribution system depends on a public subsidy, but so does the one represented by the AAP. Private-sector publishers depend essentially on at least three forms of public investment: publicly-funded research, researchers employed by public universities, and subscription fees paid by public universities with public funds.)
Posted by
Peter Suber at 3/02/2005 10:19:00 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.
