The language of the section in the appropriations bill is
that
investigators must submit to PubMed Central "an
electronic
version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscript upon
acceptance
for publication." So I think it is closest to option 2
below --
it is to be the final version as published, which is not
quite
the same thing as a copy of the published article, but it
should
be the identical content.
As for the likelihood of a veto, I have seen an
administration
report on the whole appropriations bill that disapproves of
the
section 217 provision, saying that the voluntary system
should be
given more time to work and that NIH and publishers should
continue private negotiations, but I think the veto threat
is
over the much larger issue of the level of spending.
Personally, I doubt the President would veto an otherwise
acceptable bill because of this provision. It remains to be
seen
if he will veto the bill on grounds similar to the SCHIP
veto,
with the prospect of defunding whole government agencies
beginning to loom.
Kevin L. Smith, J.D.
Scholarly Communications Officer
Perkins Library, Duke University
PO Box 90193
Durham, NC 27708
919-668-4451
kevin.l.smith duke.edu
http://libra
ry.duke.edu/blogs/scholcomm/
***************
"Ann Okerson" <aokersongmail.com>
Sent by: owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu
10/25/2007 10:10 PM
Subject RE: NIH Public Access Mandate Passes Senate
I hope this question isn't too naive -- but is the
requirement
that
(1) authors should submit reports of their NIH-funded
research to
PMC and these can be in a form of their choosing, such as
working
reports for their or others' Web sites; OR that
(2) authors should submit reports of their NIH-funded
research to
PMC and these must be in the form of articles that are
heading
for publication in a medical journal; OR THAT
(3) these reports must be copies of articles that have been
published in peer reviewed journals?
Do authors have flexiblity in what can be submitted?
Thank you,
Ann Okerson/Yale Library
|
