[Oa-italia] un altro parere su NIH
mornati a cilea.it
Mer 18 Feb 2009 10:37:05 CET
Un po' mi secca dare risonanza a Joe Esposito, pero' e' bene sentire
anche voci dissonanti e riflettere sulle provocazioni. Alla fine se
la prende con gli "attivisti" dell'Open Access, prefigurando una
sorta di epilogo esopiano, "chi troppo vuole nulla stringe", ma se
appunto non si raccoglie la provocazione e si riflette sull'invito
agli NIH ad aprire un proprio repository per dare corpo al mandato,
non si puo' che concordare.
Un saluto a tutt*,
>From: "Joseph Esposito" <espositoj a gmail.com>
>To: <liblicense-l a lists.yale.edu>
>Subject: NIH issues
>Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:20:48 EST
>Never thought I would be writing this, but the bill to overturn
>the NIH's open access policy is wrongheaded, in my opinion. Now
>that I have zero friends among traditional publishers (not that I
>ever had many), let me explain.
>The current NIH policy, in my view, is terrible, as it takes
>property it didn't pay for, namely, the editorial review
>performed by publishers; and it is reviewed material that is
>intended to go into the publicly available repositories. The OA
>activists strongly disagree with my perspective and will no doubt
>pounce on this post.
>My reading of the "anti-NIH" bill, however, is that it goes too
>far. By my reading it is saying that the government cannot
>require an author to assign a copyright. This I don't
>understand. Publishers do this all the time; it would be a rare
>publisher that has never used, say, a work-for-hire agreement.
>Is it not reasonable for an organization to say, "We are paying
>you to do something and we own what we pay for"? I personally
>signed two such agreements this week, agreeing to assign to
>clients any intellectual property I created on their dime.
>Where I would have liked the NIH brouhaha to end up is with the
>NIH creating a repository (or causing to have one created by a
>more skillful IT organization) for reports submitted by resarchers
>as a condition of funding. There would be a template for such
>reports (what to include, length, access to underlying data,
>etc.), and the reports would be part of the public record. Note
>that these reports would not go through a formal peer review
>process unless the individual researcher sought such review.
>All reports in the repository would be open for all to use, for
>any purpose whatsoever, including commercial exploitation.
>Three conditions: cite the author, cite the NIH, and don't
>change the text without the author's approval. Yes, indeedy,
>this would have major structural implications for certain
>segments of STM publications.
>Looks like this is not going to happen. Blame it on the OA
>activists, who asked for too much and now may get nothing.
Susanna Mornati, Project Leader AEPIC, www.aepic.it
CILEA Consorzio Interuniversitario, www.cilea.it
I-20090 Segrate Milano, Via R.Sanzio 4 - tel. +39 02 26995 1 (dir.322)
cell. +39 348 7090 226, e-mail: mornati a cilea.it, skype: susanna.mornati
Disclaimer: the content of this email is confidential and may be
privileged, and it must not be disclosed or copied without the
sender's consent. If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender and remove it from your system. The content of this
email does not constitute legal advice, nor any responsibility is
accepted for loss or damage incurred as a result of acting upon its
contents or attachments. The statements and opinions expressed in
this email are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect
those of the employer.
Maggiori informazioni sulla lista