LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: Elsevier Foundation Awards 2011 Grants
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:34:04 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines) 
From: T Scott Plutchak <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:01:57 +0000

PubMed Central existed long before the NIH public access policy and
would continue to exist even if the mandatory policy were revoked.
Many publishers participated in PMC before the NIH policy was adopted
and many more will continue to participate.  Authors published in
Elsevier journals would still be free to deposit their final
manuscripts.

Personally, I think RWA is a terrible bill and I don't expect it to go
anywhere, but it is not an attack on PMC itself -- it is an attack on
the requirement that articles must be deposited there.  PubMed Central
and the NIH mandatory policy are not the same thing.

Scott


T. Scott Plutchak

Director, Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences
University of Alabama at Birmingham
[log in to unmask]



-----Original Message-----
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
To: [log in to unmask]
From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:06:19 +0000

I'm not sure I see how supporting a bill that would stop the NIH
mandate to deposit papers in PubMed Central (or any similar
repository) can be classed as anything other than anti-PubMed Central.

Could Alicia explain the apparent contradiction?

David

ATOM RSS1 RSS2