[Open-access] An anti-RWA bill

Wed Feb 1 14:34:56 UTC 2012

We are arguing entirely at cross-purposes.  You are arguing against
universal publication fees, on the basis of a concern with luxury
brands (top journals).  I am arguing in favour of universal
open-access (and of taking a single step in that direction via a
broadening of the NIH mandate).

I am not in favour of universal publication fees (although I do not
think that they would result in the instant and total destruction of
science you describe).  I am certainly not convinced that a broader US
mandate will lead to universal publication fees, and you have done
little to convince me of it.  Has the NIH mandate caused a huge
increase in author-pays OA?

Your argument in any case appears to be that a broader mandate which
did not allow for an embargo (as the NIH mandate does currently allow)
would lead rapidly and inevitably to universal publication fees, and
thence to hyper-inflation of fees, the

A further request for first-hand information about the NIH mandate:
what proportion of NIH-mandated articles use an embargo?  What
proportion use 12 months?  I see that approximately half the PMC
journals are immediate open-access.  I also see this:

http://publicaccess.nih.gov/FAQ.htm#810

"Will NIH pay for publication costs?

Yes. The NIH will reimburse publication costs, including author fees,
for grants and contracts on three conditions: (1) such costs incurred
are actual, allowable, and reasonable to advance the objectives of the
award; (2) costs are charged consistently regardless of the source of
support; (3) all other applicable rules on allowability of costs are
met."
-- 
Nick Barnes, Climate Code Foundation, http://climatecode.org/