Advertisement
RayBiotech
RayBiotech

Media bungles open access details

Several news outlets keep misreporting the public access mandate of a congressional funding bill. As open access blogger Peter Suber linkurl:posted;http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/11/more-jam-about-nih-policy.html last week, Nature News, linkurl:The Washington Post;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103102668.html , the blog linkurl:Slashdot;http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/11/07/2318208.shtml, and several others all reported that a provision in

By | November 13, 2007

Several news outlets keep misreporting the public access mandate of a congressional funding bill. As open access blogger Peter Suber linkurl:posted;http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/11/more-jam-about-nih-policy.html last week, Nature News, linkurl:The Washington Post;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103102668.html , the blog linkurl:Slashdot;http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/11/07/2318208.shtml, and several others all reported that a provision in the congressional appropriations bill for 2008 would require NIH-funded researchers to publish in open access journals. On November 7, Nature News linkurl:reported;http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071107/full/450148a.html: "US investigators funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) may soon be compelled to publish only in journals that make their research papers freely available within one year of publication." What the bill actually says is that all NIH-funded research must be deposited in PubMed within one year of publication. There was a push to eliminate or alter this requirement in the bill last month, as I reported linkurl:here;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/53746/, but those amendments did not pass. This bill was linkurl:vetoed;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/53855/ today (November 13) by President Bush for its high spending level, but has been sent back to Capitol Hill for a vote to override the veto. Suber coined this common error made by media, agencies, and government JAM, or Journal-Archive Mixup. He has been tracking its occurrence for more than three years.

Comments

Avatar of: Jim Till

Jim Till

Posts: 2

November 14, 2007

What's not clear: why is the JAM (Journal-Archive Mixup) error being made so often, by so many people who should be better-informed? A possible reason has been provided by Peter Suber, in More on JAM about the NIH policy, Open Access News, November 10, 2007:\n
"People understand OA journals, more or less, because they understand journals. But there's no obvious counterpart to OA archiving in the traditional landscape of scholarly communication. It's as if people can only understand new things that they can assimilate to old things".
\n

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
LI-COR Biosciences
LI-COR Biosciences
Advertisement
PITTCON
PITTCON
Life Technologies