Technology Blog

The Open Access to Knowledge Law Project at Queensland University of Technology has published a major report, Creating a legal framework for copyright management of open access within the Australian academic and research sector (dated August 2006 but released today).  From the executive summary:

This Report analyses the copyright law framework needed to ensure open access to outputs of the Australian academic and research sector such as datasets, articles and theses. It is written in the context of an increasing recognition, in Australia and internationally, that access to knowledge is a key driver of social, cultural and economic development and that publicly funded research should be openly accessible. With the objective of enabling access to knowledge, this Report proposes the development of clear protocols for copyright management (designed as practical and effective tools) for implementation in the Australian academic and research sector….

More specifically, this Report provides an overview of the principles of copyright law, the concept of open access to knowledge, the recently developed open content models of copyright licensing and proposes a framework for enhancing the management of copyright interests in research and academic output (including electronic theses and dissertations (ETD)). The Report describes a forward work program which, upon implementation, will provide the platform for the development of systems and practices designed to effectively promote open access to knowledge within the Australian academic and research sector.

The Report calls upon Australian research and funding institutions to consider their commitment to open access and articulate this in clear polices and copyright management frameworks….

The forward work plan will see the OAK Law Project:

• Develop template guidelines for open access policies that can be considered for adoption within university and research institutions
• Develop a detailed list (OAK List) of the attitudes of publishers relating to open access as evidenced in the terms of publishers’ agreements. The
  OAK List aims to be interoperable with the UK based SHERPA List
• Survey researchers about their understanding of, attitudes towards and experience with publishing agreements
• Develop or recommend model publishing agreements and addenda that facilitate open access
• Develop or recommend model agreements that can assist the copyright management of open access repositories
• Survey the existing policies of funding institutions towards open access and develop model policies based on international developments
• Provide more support to ETD Repositories through developing guides for students about self managing copyright issues and assisting the repositories in terms of copyright management protocols and licences

source: Advancing OA in Australia

The power of information - closing the knowledge gap.  A press release from the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), September 27, 2006.  (Thanks to P. Kapoor-Vijay.)  Excerpt:

Over 100 of the world’s poorest countries will now be able to access leading food and agriculture journals for little or no cost with the launch of the second phase of the Global Online Research in Agriculture (AGORA) initiative, FAO announced today.

AGORA is a successful public-private partnership between FAO, 37 of the world’s leading science publishers and other key partners including the World Health Organization and Cornell University. Introduced in 2003 and providing access to 69 low-income countries, AGORA today expands to include universities, colleges, research institutes and government ministries as well as non-governmental organizations in an additional 37 lower-middle-income countries….

“We have seen from the first phase of this initiative that there is increasing demand for access to vital information by poorer countries. In less than three years, AGORA has already helped bridge the knowledge gap by providing 850 institutions access to over 900 journals in the areas of agriculture and related subjects,” notes Anton Mangstl, Director of FAO’s Library and Documentation Systems Division.

Under the second phase of AGORA launched today, 37 countries with a per capita GNP of between US$ 1000 and US$ 3000 will be eligible. Institutions wishing to register will have a three-month free trial period before they are asked to pay an annual subscription of US$ 1000. FAO will invest all subscription income into local training initiatives to help increase awareness and usage of AGORA amongst librarians and scientists.

source: AGORA enters Phase Two

This year I was once again asked to be a judge in OCLC’s second annual software contest, which is open to anyone who develops an applications that takes advantage of OCLC data services (like xISBN, which combines records for multiple editions of a single book, or WorldCat, which provides information on which libraries have an item in their collection).

The winner this year was a very impressive tool called Umlaut, but while I completely appreciate the skills it took to implement, and the value it provides to library patrons, it’s not something I’ll use on a day-to-day basis.

The runner-up, on the other hand, is something that I’ve already installed and fallen in love with. It’s a fabulous tool called Book Burro, created by Jesse Andrews. Here’s the brief description:

Book Burro is a Web 2.0 extension for Firefox and Flock. When it senses your are looking at a page that contains a book, it will overlay a small panel which when opened lists prices at online bookstores such as Amazon, Buy, Half (and many more) and soon whether the book is available at your library.

Once you’ve installed the extension, anytime you go to a bookstore listing (like the Amazon page shown below) an unobtrusive pane is displayed in the top left corner of your page. By default, it shows you the price for the item on other bookseller sites. But if you configure the extension with your zip code, it also shows you local libraries that have the item, listed in order of distance from you. Suh-weet!

This is a tool that will significantly improve my day-to-day quality of life—both for knowing what the RIT library has so I can borrow it, and for letting me know what they don’t have so I can suggest that they order it. And, when I do want to acquire a copy for myself, I’ll be able to easily comparison shop without having to go to multiple sites.

source: contest judging bonus: discovery of book burro!

Taylor & Francis is the latest publisher to adopt a hybrid OA journal program.  From today’s announcement:

Taylor & Francis are today delighted to announce the introduction of an “iOpenAccess” option for authors publishing in 175 journals from T&F’s Chemistry, Mathematics and Physics portfolios, one behavioural science journal from Psychology Press, and medical and bioscience journals from Informa Healthcare.

From October 2006, all authors whose manuscripts are accepted for publication in one of the iOpenAccess journals will have the option to make their articles freely available to all via the Journal’s website for a one-off fee of $3100.

Commenting on the launch of the initiative, Journals Publishing Director, Dr David Green, stated: “…We are introducing iOpenAccess only after the widest possible consultation with the editor, author and funder communities. We are doing so in a manner which will continue to guarantee the integrity of peer review and the rights of authors, and which will ensure the continuing viability and quality of major international journals with whose publishing stewardship we are entrusted.”

Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, commented: “I am very pleased that Taylor and Francis are now offering an open access choice to publish in their journals. We all want to maximise the impact of biomedical research. Ensuring the widest distribution of the results of biomedical research is a key part of achieving that aim.”

• Authors will be asked to grant a publishing licence or assign copyright in the normal way. Selection of the iOpenAccess option and payment of the appropriate fee will then allow the article to be made available to all under a Creative Commons Licence (Attribution-Non-commercial-No Derivatives version 2.5 ). Under this licence we will allow tagging and cross-referencing of articles within repositories so that they relate back to the original research grants and programmes.
• Authors selecting the iOpenAccess option will have no embargo restriction on posting their version of the published article to any institutional or subject repository. Where appropriate, we will facilitate deposit on behalf of authors into PubMedCentral.
• We undertake to review the subscription prices of each journal with respect to the uptake of the iOpenAccess initiative, and the relevant information will be published on each journal’s home page at www.tandf.co.uk/journals….

Comment. The T&F program is better than some and worse than others. It gives positive answers to three of my nine questions for hybrid OA journal programs.  It uses CC licenses on participating articles.  It allows deposit in OA repositories independent of T&F.  It adds no new embargo for self-archiving.  What are the weaknesses of this program?  It doesn’t let authors retain copyright; it doesn’t waive the fees in case of economic hardship; it promises to “review” (but not to reduce) subscription prices in light of the rate of author uptake.  It will apparently charge its iOA fee even for authors who wish to self-archive (a retreat from its previous no-fee green policy); and it will apparently even charge authors for the right to comply with a previous contract with their funding agency to deposit their postprint in an OA repository.  Finally, the fee is one of the highest in the industry.

Update. Taylor & Francis has posted new details on its the iOpenAccess program. In short, (1) it does let authors retain copyright when T&F owns the journal and the author gives T&F a license to publish; (2) it is willing, in the right cases, to waive the iOA fee for authors who cannot afford it; (3) it is willing to reduce subscription prices in light of author uptake; (4) it has not retreated from its policy to allow no-fee self-archiving after an embargo, but it now also allows no-embargo self-archiving for a fee. Authors who need to comply with a funder’s OA mandate may choose either form of self-archiving. On point #3, the new online clarification merely repeats the original position; but in its email correspondence with me T&F made clear that will review uptake data in order to consider reducing subscription prices.

source: Taylor & Francis adopts a hybrid OA program

Nathan Grossman, Professor starts tropical disease journal to raise awareness, The GW Hatchet (independent student paper at George Washington University), September 28, 2006 (free registration required). Excerpt:

Peter Hotez, chair of the Microbiology, Immunology and Tropical Diseases department [at GWU], began a new scientific journal called Public Library of Science: Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Neglected tropical diseases are relatively unknown infectious diseases that are most predominate in rural areas, usually within developing countries. NTDs include leprosy, leishmaniasis, schistosomiasis and the human hookworm, the object of the Hotez’s latest research. Hotez hopes that the journal will improve collaboration and cooperation among researchers and experts studying NTDs.  But the aim of the new journal goes beyond medical research. Hotez said he hopes it will allow scientists to advocate for greater awareness and treatment of NTDs. He believes NTDs have been ignored not only by pharmaceutical companies, but also local, national and international communities….

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently gave $1.1 million to the PLoS journal, and Hotez spoke about NTD’s with former President Jimmy Carter at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York last week….

The PLoS journal will feature an innovative “open access” feature, by which any scientist, physician or public health official can contribute research to the journal’s Web site.

PS:  I hope the paper can correct the last sentence.  OA means open or free for access, reading, copying, redistribution, and other uses, not open for anyone’s contribution.  A peer-reviewed OA journal isn’t a wiki and only publishes the research articles that meet its editorial standard.

source: More on PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Ed Zalta, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: A university/library partnership in support of scholarly communication and open access, College & Research Library News, September 2006.  Excerpt:

SEP organizes the profession of philosophy to collaboratively maintain a dynamic open access reference work….All entries, and updates to entries, are rigorously refereed prior to publication on the Web. Our backend Web content management system keeps track of the state of every entry on a daily basis….Finally, we make a fixed copy of SEP every quarter, and these quarterly archives provide stable content for purposes of citation.

This is a publishing model that is rather different from a journal. Our production routines are asynchronous (each entry is produced on its own customized schedule), and thus our workflow control system is far more complex than that required by journals published on a regular schedule. We now publish an average of ten entries a month, and five updates a month, at a total project cost of $191,000 a year for AY2005–06 ($154,000 of this total is for salaries and benefits). SEP has mirror sites at three other universities, all of which are donating their resources. These sites synchronize to the Stanford server on a nightly basis….Finally, our copyright policy works for the author: authors retain copyright to reprint their articles in any fixed medium, but give  SEP an exclusive license to publish the entry on the Web….

From its inception in 1995, SEP has been open access….

After investigating various long-term funding models, a committee consisting of representatives of Stanford, International Coalition of Library Consortia, SPARC, and SOLINET came up with the idea of creating a partnership that builds a permanent operating fund for SEP….A 4.8 percent yearly payout on a $4.125 million fund would secure SEP’s operating budget for the long term. The partnership calls for 1) Stanford University to raise $1.125 million towards this fund (primarily from private donors), and 2) the large umbrella library organizations to raise $3 million (primarily from libraries worldwide at institutions offering degrees in philosophy). SOLINET will collect library contributions and turn them over to Stanford under a contract that protects library contributions in that: a) Stanford is allowed to use library money only for the support of  SEP, and b) if the SEP project ever terminates, Stanford will return the money the libraries have contributed with any interest and appreciation (in excess of the payout) earned while Stanford was entrusted with the funds….

SEP is a true university-library partnership and presents a new model for open access that dovetails precisely with the goals and objectives of the scholarly communication community. In particular SEP provides:
• the broadest possible access to published research;
• control by scholars, the academy, and the library community over publishing;
• fair and reasonable prices for receiving the benefits of membership in SEPIA;
• completely open access to scholarship;
• innovations in publishing that reduce distribution costs, speed delivery, and extend access to scholarly research;
• quality assurance in publishing through peer review;
• fair use of copyrighted information for education and research purposes; and
• preservation of scholarly information for long-term future use….

Once SEP is funded, there are no further fees, and open access is ensured in perpetuity….Perhaps, most importantly, participation in this partnership enables libraries to make a difference; your library would do its part in making an investment that furthers both scholarly communication and open access….

PS:  I’ve often blogged my support for the SEP and its elegant funding model.  If your library supports SEP users, and it almost certainly does, please urge it to make a one-time contribution to build SEP’s permanent OA endowment.

source: The OA Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: its features and funding model

Last week, David Johnston, President of the University of Waterloo, set for his vision that the Waterloo Region become the “Knowledge Capital of Canada”.  Today, William Oldfield proposed an OA journal for the region as a key step toward that goal.  Excerpt from Oldfield’s case:

David Johnston’s vision of Waterloo Region as the Knowledge Capital of Canada would make this a great place to live.  To assist in the effort, I propose the establishment of a community-based publishing enterprise for the distribution and sharing of the products of the community.

I envision two components: an open access journal and an on-demand publishing enterprise.  Open access journals are magazines published on the Web and distributed without charge. The open access journal is designed to facilitate the sharing of knowledge. I see a journal covering a variety of topics including short stories and even graphic arts to encourage the growth of our local artistic community….The product of a Knowledge Capital of Canada is knowledge. The sharing of that knowledge is an essential component for success.

source: An OA journal to serve a city and region

Well, I’m back in Dublin in one piece, after a great honeymoon in Corsica. Lots of stuff to catch up on, so if you’re waiting on a response, sorry, it might take a little longer…

Tags:honeymoon life meta wedding

This post was written by Justin, source: Back in one piece

source: Presentations on digital libraries and e-science

Stevan Harnad, Optimizing OA Self-Archiving Mandates: What? Where? When? Why? How? Open Access Archivangelism, September 27, 2006.

Summary:  With the adoption of Open Access Self-Archiving Mandates worldwide so near, this is the opportune time to think of optimizing how they are formulated. Seemingly small parametric or verbal variants can make a vast difference to their success, speed, and completeness of coverage:
     What to mandate: The primary target content is the author’s final, peer-reviewed draft (”postprint”) of all journal articles accepted for publication.
     Why to mandate self-archiving: The purpose of mandating OA self-archiving is to maximize research usage and impact by maximizing user access to research findings.
     Where to self-archive: The optimal locus for self-archiving is the author’s own OAI-compliant Institutional Repository (IR). (It is highly inadvisable to mandate direct deposit in a Central Repository (CR) — whether discipline-based, funder-based, multidisciplinary or national. The right way to get OA content into CRs is to harvest it from the IRs (via the OAI protocol).)
     When to self-archive: The author’s final, peer-reviewed draft (postprint) should be deposited in the author’s IR immediately upon acceptance for publication. (The deposit must be immediate; any allowable delay or embargo should apply only to the access-setting, i.e., whether access to the deposited article is immediately set to Open Access or provisionally set to Closed Access, in which only the author can access the deposited text.)
     How to self-archive: Depositing a postprint in an author’s IR and keying in its metadata (author, title, journal, date, etc.) takes less than 10 minutes per paper. Deposit analyses comparing mandated and unmandated self-archiving rates have shown that mandates (and only mandates) work, with self-archiving approaching 100% of annual institutional research output within a few years. Without a mandate, IR content just hovers for years at the spontaneous 15% self-archiving rate.

Comment.  Any funder or university considering an OA mandate would do well to follow this advice.  For my own recommendations, see my August 2006 article, Ten lessons from the funding agency open access policies.

source: Crafting an OA mandate

I’m on a flight from Japan to New York for the Anderson event tonight. It is an ANA flight with wifi and ethernet jacks in at least the business/first class seats. There doesn’t seem to be any technical blocking (though I can’t get FTP to work very well). But interestingly, on the instruction sheet, it says:

ANA kindly requests that passengers refrain from using internet based voice applications and refrain from viewing objectionable material over the internet as it may disturb other passengers.

It is interesting (and refreshing) to see places where the authorities believe norms are a sufficient regulator. It is also interesting (and not surprising) to parse the “request.” Only the second restriction is explained — viewing porn, e.g., would disturb others. Fair enough. But the first restriction is not explained — until you flip the page to read about the telephone service the airplane offers (at about $10/minute).

(Note, the norm technique may also be what Google is doing on its fantastic new service giving free PDFs of works in the public domain. They too request the work not be used commercially.)

source: norms as regulators

Michael Cross, France maps out the path to liberate its data, The Guardian, September 28, 2006. Excerpt:

[The French] Institut Géographique National…is accused of hindering France’s knowledge economy by the high prices it charges for digital data and the obscure way it calculates them. Government auditors also accuse the institute of conflicts of interest in setting national policy for a sector in which it is the dominant player….

Although the directly subsidised IGN is run on a different model to its British equivalent, Ordnance Survey, its problems spring from the conflict that arises when a public agency tries to market data commercially. Now an official inquiry in France has suggested a possible solution along the lines of that proposed by Guardian Technology’s Free Our Data campaign. This is to make taxpayer-funded data sets freely available to all comers on the web….

Far from encouraging the use of geographical data, the report says, the institute has discouraged the RGE’s take-up by setting high prices, despite a 70% government subsidy. The mechanism for setting charges is complex and secretive, relying on the “good sense” of administrators. Their incentive, is to get as much income as possible in the short term, which encourages squeezing more money from captive customers. Altogether, the inspectors find “a lack of rigour” in the institute’s commercial policies.

“This situation is responsible for the low level of sales and the feeble development of the geographical information sector in France, compared with other European countries,” they comment….

The inspectors recommend that the institution’s commercial activities be separated from its “public good” functions, with separate and transparent accounts. They also say that public data should be priced to encourage wide take-up. “To take this reasoning to its logical conclusion, free online access on the internet could even be envisaged.”

Guardian Technology wholeheartedly agrees. Citoyens! Libérons nos données!

source: Free online access to public geodata proposed in France

source: Ohio State U Press provides OA to its OP books

One of the most important conclusions that can be drawn from the work of Benkler, von Hippel, Weber (my review of both is here), and many others is that the Internet has reminded us that we live not just in one economy, but at least two. One economy is the traditional “commercial economy,” an economy regulated by the quid pro quo: I’ll do this (work, write, sing, etc.) in exchange for money. Another economy is (the names are many) the (a) amateur economy, (b) sharing economy, (c) social production economy, (d) noncommercial economy, or (e) p2p economy. This second economy (however you name it, I’m just going to call it the “second economy”) is the economy of Wikipedia, most FLOSS development, the work of amateur astronomers, etc. It has a different, more complicated logic too it than the commercial economy. If you tried to translate all interactions in this second economy into the frame of the commercial economy, you’d kill it.

Having now seen the extraordinary value of this second economy, I think most would agree we need to think lots about how best to encourage it — what techniques are needed to call it into life, how is it sustained, what makes it flourish. I don’t think anyone knows exactly how to do it well. Those living in real second economy communities (such as Wikipedia) have a good intuition about it.

But a second and also extremely difficult problem is how, or whether, the economies can be linked. Is there a way to cross over from the commercial to second economy? Is there a way to manage a hybrid economy — one that tries to manage this link.

The challenge of the hybrid economy is what Mozilla, RedHat, Second Life, MySpace are struggling with all the time. How can you continue to inspire the creative work of the second economy, while also expanding the value of the commercial economy? This is, in my view, a different challenge from the challenge of how you call this second economy into being, but obviously, they are related. But this challenge too is one I don’t think anyone yet understands fully.

As I watch Creative Commons develop, I’ve been encouraged by the experiments that try to find a way to preserve this second economy, while enabling links to the first. I wrote before about Yehuda Berlinger who had set IP law to verse. In that post, I nudged him to adopt a CC license. He did, but he did so in a very interesting way. As his site now reads:

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License. Attribution should include a live link to this blog post, whenever possible; text link otherwise. License for commercial usage also available from the owner.

This idea is one we’re experimenting with at CC — a NC license that explicitly includes a link to another site to enable commercial licensing. It is one way to preserve the separation of these separate spheres. I’d be eager to hear about other ways you might think better.

But the important point to recognize is that this effort to preserve the separation is fundamentally different from the effort of many in the “free software” or “free content” movement who want all “free” licenses to permit any sort of use, commercial or not. Imho, they are simply ignoring an important reality about the difference between these two economies. Indeed, they’re making the opposite mistake that many in the commercial world make: Just as many commercial rights holders believe every single use of creative work ought to be regulated by copyright (see, e.g., the push to force what are plainly “fair uses” of copyrighted work on YouTube to pay the copyright owners), so too these advocates of “free content” would push everyone to treat everything as if it is free of copyright regulation (effectively, if not technically). Second economy sorts believe differently — that some uses should be free, and others should be with permission.

It is because I have enormous respect for those who make the latter mistake (and believe their motives are more likely pure) that I urge them to consider the radical simplification of social life they insist we push on the world. I like the dynamics of the second economy. Benkler has given it a theory. I think we should be working to support it, not pretending that it is not there.

The obvious reply (and the real puzzle for me) is FLOSS. I said at the start it effectively operated in the second economy. But the “free content” movement that I’m skeptical of is simply trying to push the norms of FLOSS into the content space. How could it then be any different?

In my view, the difference comes from the difference in nature of the stuff. Some cultural production can be collaborative in exactly the way FLOSS is — Wikipedia. But you need an argument to get from some to all. No doubt, I too need an argument that some is different from some. I don’t have that yet. But it is here that I think the really important discussion needs to happen.

Oh, and by the way, Yehuda has added Trademark Law to his verses.

source: on the economies of culture

Shaping Jazz is a thoughtful and detailed look at the impact of Ornette Coleman put together by Darius Brubeck, and maybe best summarized by the anecdote of Max Roach’s assault, or maybe just this review of the Five Spot gig by Charles Mingus:

“Now aside from the fact that I doubt he can play a C scale in whole notes … in tune, the fact remains that his notes and lines are so fresh.

So when [radio DJ] Symphony Sid played his record, it made everything else he was playing, even my own record that he played, sound terrible! I’m not saying everybody’s going to have to play like Coleman. But they’re going to have to stop copying Bird. You can’t put your finger on what he is doing. It’s like organized disorganization, or playing wrong right.”
[ Jack Reilly ]

The story goes that whale songs carry vast distances in the ocean — bear with me here — and they start with a simple motif, then it gets embellished, developed, revised, evolving through the ocean waves from a simple melodic construct of a few notes until it has become a major opus lasting the major portion of an hour.

Scientists are quite intrigued by all this, but there’s something that intrigues them even more: All of a sudden, the massive opus will vanish, replaced by a new ‘now’ sound, short, simple, primitive, and the cycle begins. “Why would they do this?” the rationalists ask, “why would they not simply proceed to greater heights of complexity until they have placed a whale on the moon?”

source: The Shape of Jazz

Yehuda Berlinger has a very clever remix of the U.S. IP Code — rendering both copyright law and patent law in verse. Now only if it were better licensed, someone might add some melody…

source: IP Code, in verse

The British Council and Counterpoint has a new publication, “Unbounded Freedom: A Guide to Creative Commons Thinking for Cultural Organizations,” written by Rosemary Bechler. The book will be launched Friday. There’s a discussion page on the author’s blog, which begins with a useful post addressing the question: “So why did I choose to licence my work in this way?”

source: British Council on “Creative Commons Thinking”

YouTube has announced:

Sophisticated tools to help content owners identify their content on the site;
(1) Automated audio identification technology to help prevent works previously removed from the site at the request of the copyright owner from reappearing on the site;
(2) The opportunity to authorize and monetize the use of their works within the user-generated content on the site;
(3) Reporting and tracking systems for royalties, etc.

This is going to get very interesting.

source: “It was well for Pandora that she opened the box “: YouTube on user-generated content

The NIH Reauthorization Bill, just passed by the House of Representatives, includes language to monitor the effectiveness of the NIH public access policy.  From today’s announcement by the Alliance for Taxpayer Access:

Legislation to provide for a sweeping overhaul of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) - the first of its kind in 13 years - includes key report language underscoring Congressional oversight to actively monitor participation rates and overall effectiveness of the NIH’s Public Access Policy.

The NIH Reauthorization Bill, authored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, passed the House of Representatives on Tuesday, September 26.

“We’re pleased that the House committee responsible for overseeing NIH included report language addressing the existing Public Access Policy, and indicated it will be paying close attention to the policy’s ongoing performance,” said Heather Joseph, Executive Director of SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition) and spokesperson for the Alliance for Taxpayer Access (ATA).

The importance of the public access policy was also brought into focus at last week’s markup of the bill, when Congressman Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania echoed concerns about the meager participation rate - less than five percent - under the current voluntary policy.

“There’s just no better way to put it - it’s not right. The American taxpayer paid for this research - they’ll pay nearly 30 billion dollars next year alone - and they are entitled to expect that publicly funded research is available to anyone who might use it to improve health conditions in the U.S. and around the world,” Doyle said at the markup….

Committee Chairman Joe Barton responded during markup, telling Doyle he shares many of his concerns regarding the function of the public access policy and pledging to work with the Congressman to implement reform measures….

Earlier this year, the House Appropriations Committee approved language that would amend the existing NIH Public Access Policy so that deposit of articles would be mandatory for all NIH-funded researchers.

PS:  The appropriations language that would strengthen the NIH policy from a request to a requirement is still pending.  The reauthorization bill today is a separate action, showing that impatience is building in Congress for the NIH policy to meet its original goals.

source: House wants better results from NIH policy

Neil Blair Christensen, Free article for sale: $11,000 — What is free public access worth?  Kidney International, October 2006.  An editorial.  Not even an abstract is free online, at least so far.

source: What is free public access worth?