Parece ser un asunto interno en EEUU en el frente de la lucha relacionada
con el dominio p�blico (en este caso, el derecho de publicaci�n sin
intermediario, para el mundo cientifico), pero las apuestas son globales.
Se trata del lindo esfuerzo Public Library of Science (http://plos.org) del
cual hemos ya conversado.
>Date: 10 Nov 2004 23:54:52 -0000
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: URGENT support for NIH public access policy
>From: "Harold Varmus" <[email protected]>
>
>Dear Open Access Supporter,
>
>On September 3, 2004 the NIH posted for comment an "Enhanced Public Access
>Policy." This policy would require the recipients of NIH research grants
>to provide to the National Library of Medicine a digital copy of the final
>accepted manuscript (or the published version itself) of every published
>report resulting from NIH-funded research, so that the
>research results can be made freely available to scientists and the
>public through PubMed Central within six months of publication.
>
>We are writing now to urge you to submit a comment in support of this
>proposal right away. The deadline for comments is just a few days away
>- November 16th.
>
>The text of the proposal is available at:
>http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html
>
>You can post comments here:
>http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/public_access/add.htm
>
>A powerful lobby of publishers and scientific societies is trying to block
>this plan. They claim that this is an unwarranted government intrusion on
>their business practices. In fact, the NIH policy has no authority over
>publishers - its rules apply only to the scientists who voluntarily accept
>grants from the NIH. The publishers remain free to operate their
>businesses as they always have and to compete in the free market to
>provide the best service and value to their authors and readers. But the
>publishers are wrong in arguing that they are entitled to monopoly control
>over access to the results of research that American taxpayers have paid
>for. On the contrary, the taxpayers who fund the research, and the
>scientists who carry it out, have every right to ask the grant recipients
>to provide open access to the published results.
>And they have every right to expect that the benefits of the research will
>be amplified by making it freely and widely available for others to use
>and to build on.
>
>Let the NIH know that you support this policy proposal. Even better would
>be to tell the NIH that you would prefer an even stronger policy that
>requires full and immediate open access to all papers resulting from
>NIH-funded research. It is important that the NIH and other policymakers
>understand that this is not (as some publishers would have them believe) a
>radical proposal destined to destroy scientific publishing, but a
>thoughtful compromise that balances the desire for better access with the
>commercial interests of scientific publishers.
>
>More information about the policy is available at
>http://www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/index.htm
>http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/
>
>Notable statements of support for the plan include:
>An open letter to the US Congress signed by 25 Nobel Laureates:
>http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/bof.html
>
>The Council of the National Academy of Sciences:
>http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s09162004?OpenDocument
>
>Please let us know if you have any questions.
>
>Harold Varmus
>Patrick Brown
>Michael Eisen
Este archivo fue generado por hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Jan 4 10:02:49 2005 AST