Dear Colleagues,

   Acta participates very nicely and fully in the NIH Open Access
program.  After
one year of the normal restricted access any NIH-funded paper automatically
enters the NIH open access system.  The journals get to get their
revenue when
the paper is most in demand, but the community is not excessively delayed in
free access.

   I most certainly do suggest that it is a good idea for people who are
not US taxpayers
to also have access to the science the NIH funding produces.  We will
all live longer
and happier lives by seeing a much progress made as rapidly as possible
world-wide
in health-related scientific research.  I would hate to think of the
cure of a disease being
greatly delayed because some researcher in Europe or India or China
could not get
access to research results.  We all benefit from seeing the best
possible use made
of NIH-funded research.

   I agree that in this case, adding more legislation is a bad idea --
particularly
adding this legislation.

   I agree that

"If the authors of a paper wants their work to be available to the
general public there is Wikipedia.
I strongly support an effort by all members of ccp4bb to contribute a
general public summary of their work on Wikipedia.
There are Open Source journals as well. "

However, there is a practical reality for post-docs and junior faculty
that, at least in the US,
most institutions will not consider Wikipedia articles in tenure and
promotion evaluations,
so it really is a good idea for them to, in addition to publishing in
Wikipedia, to write "real"
journal articles.  I also agree that using open source journals in a
good idea in the abstract,
but I, for one, really don't want the IUCr journals to go away, and the
NIH Open Access
policy allows me to both support the IUCr and have my work become open
access a
year later.  I think it is a wonderful compromise.  Please, don't let
the perfect be the
enemy of the good.  If we don't prevent Elsevier from killing NIH Open
Access with
this bill, then there is a risk that many fewer people will publish in
the IUCr publications.

You seem to be arguing strongly that we should both have Open Access and
have money
for editing journals.  I agree.  The current NIH Open Access policy does
just that.
It is the pending bill that will face you with the start choice of
either having Open Access
or having edited journals.  You come much closer to your goals if you
sign the petition
and help the NIH Open Access policy to continue in force, than if the
bill passes and
the NIH Open Access policy dies.  If the Open Access policy dies, I for
one will face
a difficult choice -- publish in the IUCr journals and pay them an open
access fee
I may not be able to come up with, or publish in free, pure open source
journals
but fail to support the IUCr.  Let is hope the petition gets lots of
signatures and this
misguided bill dies.

Regards,
   Herbert


On 2/16/12 12:17 PM, Enrico Stura wrote:
> I am strongly in favour of Open Acess, but Open Access is not always
> helped
> by lack of money for editing etc.
>
> For example:
> Acta Crystallographica is not Open Acess.
> In one manner or another publishing must be financed.
> Libraries pay fees for the journals. The fees help the International
> Union of Crystallography.
> The money is used for sponsoring meetings, and some scientists that
> come from less rich
> institutions benefit from it.
>
> Open Acess to NIH sponsored scientific work will be for all world tax
> payers and tax doggers as well.
> OR May be you would suggest that NIH sponsored work should be accessed
> only by US tax payers with a valid social security number?
> The journal server will verify that Tax for the current year has been
> filed with the IRS server. A dangerous invasion of privacy!
> The more legislation we add the worse off we are.
>
> If the authors of a paper wants their work to be available to the
> general public there is Wikipedia.
> I strongly support an effort by all members of ccp4bb to contribute a
> general public summary of their work on Wikipedia.
> There are Open Source journals as well.
>
> I would urge everybody NOT to sign the petition. Elsevier will not
> last for ever, and the less
> accessible the work that they publish, the worse for them in terms of
> impact factor.
> In the old days, if your institution did not have the journal, most
> likely you would not reference the work
> and the journal was worth nothing.
> We are the ones that will decide the future of Elsevier.  Elsevier
> will need to strike a balance between excellent
> publishing with resonable fees or not getting referenced. A law that
> enforces a copyright will not help them.
> They are wasting their money on lobbing.
>
> The argument that NIH scientist need to publish in High Impact Factor
> Journals by Elsevier does not hold up:
> 1) We should consider the use of impact factor as a NEGATIVE
> contribution to science.
> 2) Each article can now have its own impact factor on Google Scholar,
> independent on the journal it is published in.
> 3) Even for journals not indexed on PubMed,  Google Scholar finds them.
>
> I hold the same opinion for the OsX debate.
> Don't buy Apple! Use linux instead. When enough people protest where
> it really hurts the
> company, they will no longer have the money to lobby the American
> Congressmen.
> If they make an excellent product, then they deserve the money and
> quite rightly they
> can try to build a monopoly around their technology. I fight that, I
> use LINUX.
>
> By signing petitions we acknowledge the power of the legislators. This
> is another form
> of lobbing. If we disapprove of lobbing we should not engage in the
> practice even if we give
> no money.
> We have more powerful means of protest. The 24 Hour shutdown of
> Wikipedia meets my approval.
>
> There is also patenting. How do we feel about it?
> Some of the work I have done has also been patented. I do not feel
> right about it.
>
> There is MONEY everywhere. This ruins our ability to acqure knowledge
> that should be free for everybody.
> But since it costs to acquire it, it cannot be free.
> LAWS should be for the benefit of the nation. But legislators have the
> problem of money to be re-elected.
> Can we trust them?
> Can we trust their laws?
>
> Companies also play very useful roles. Some companies less so.
> But at least they work for a profit and thus they must provide a worth
> while service.
> This is not true for politicians.
>
>
> Enrico.
>
>