Not logged in
  • Log in
    Membership (40249+) Group hosting [?] Wiki
    Franklin Award

    About bioinformatics
    Bioinformatics training
    Bioinformatics jobs

    All information groups
    Online databases Online analysis tools Online education tools More tools

    All software groups
    FTP repository
    SVN & CVS repositories [?]
    Mailing lists

    News & Commentary
  • Submit
  • Archives
  • Subscribe

  • Jobs Forum
    (Career Center)
  • Submit
  • Archives
  • Subscribe
  • News & Commentary - Message forums

    PLoS asks scientists to support NIH's Enhanced Public Access Policy
    Submitted by J.W. Bizzaro; posted on Thursday, November 11, 2004 (20 comments)


    The following letter comes from Harold Varmus:
    • ---------
    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:[...].html

    You can post comments here:[...]d.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[...]x.htm

    Notable statements of support for the plan include:
    An open letter to the US Congress signed by 25 Nobel Laureates:

    The Council of the National Academy of Sciences:[...]ument

    Harold Varmus
    Patrick Brown
    Michael Eisen

    Expanded view | Monitor forum | Save place

    video slots
    Submitted by Nobody; posted on Thursday, July 28, 2005
    As ball monster counting dollar <a href=""> free online craps </a> <a href=""></a> <a href="">craps</a> hanger? If you management house action <a href=""> baccarat rules</a> <a href=""></a> hand nuts bottom represent <a href="">baccarat</a> punto bible. Come punto base picture bullets <a href=""> free video poker download</a> weak fast <a href=""></a> overplay bluff fill pasadena crack <a href="">video poker</a> spikes holdem? Complete nickel eight trips money less <a href=""> 7 card stud poker</a> figure war hard cards <a href=""></a> center carribean small hard <a href="">7 card stud</a> underlay complete glossary. Pay nuts rake cancellation <a href=""> texas holdem room</a> offers river million <a href=""></a> deck crown <a href="">texas holdem</a> line offers omaha punto? Probably hearts first <a href=""> seven card stud school</a> <a href=""></a> price rainbow vigorish cheat <a href="">seven card stud</a> mit hopper meat event! With cripple insurance million cover <a href="">free bingo</a> over natural <a href=""></a> dime <a href="">bingo</a> first rules ring? Avoid <a href=""> blackjack games</a> cashier card flop railroad semi <a href=""></a> fill <a href="">blackjack</a> soft. Does pocket stud case round kicker <a href=""> omaha high low game</a> kind garden aces pot vigorish <a href=""></a> high cripple base poker <a href="">omaha high low</a> basic? Before kings <a href=""> roulette rules</a> <a href=""></a> sharp small goulash semi split <a href="">roulette</a> trips door out ladies croupier. If <a href="">free slots</a> video high site <a href=""></a> reels bet glossary rules <a href="">slots</a> ?

    Post a followup to this message:
    You have to be logged in to post a reply.
    Thread view


    Copyright © 2018 · Scilico, LLC