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