Conflating OA with other issues we like

At the 2nd International Public Knowledge Project Conference’s CLA pre-conference, a bunch of librarians and a few assorted others got together to talk about open access (OA).  One thing I kept finding myself coming back to is something I’ve been thinking about for several months now: whether we who are advocating open access should perhaps be more careful about when we are speaking about OA, and when we are speaking about other, related, topics which we may care a lot about but are not at core essentially about open access.

Most definitions of OA I have seen run along the lines of: free online access to scholarly research, which is often also free of many licensing restrictions.

To me, that definition says the primary goal of OA is Access to Read.  The secondary goal, then, is Access to Reuse. To me, that definition does not say anything about disrupting the economics of scholarly publishing.  To me that definition does not say that OA is about resisting the commodification of knowledge.

Radical change in the functioning of scholarly publishers may be a goal many of us share, but is it essentially about OA?  I would venture to say no.

Two topics that are related to changing the status quo of scholarly publishing, and often associated with OA, which came up for me at the preconference were the Serials Crisis & Conflicts of Interest in journal publishing. I’m going to argue that these are not really about OA.  Feel free to counter argue if you wish — I’m hammering this out in my mind yet.

Conflict of Interest

I think that, although some significant OA endeavours have been created in the spirit of general openness and inspired by closed editorial situations that have masked conflicts of interest (particularly in health/medicine; yes I’m talking about situations like the editors who moved from JAMA to Medscape and left CMAJ to found Open Medicine), we can generally agree that OA journals are not essentially in any way impervious to conflicts of interest.

OA journals can be as in-conflict, as corrupt, or as anything-else-you-want as closed access journals.  Why not?  It’s part of the beauty of open access that it is not tied to any one particular business or operating model. It’s about end-user access.  Period. With regard to conflicts of interest, I think we (and especially those of us dealing primarily with health information) just need to be mindful of not conflating OA with conflict-free (or even necessarily conflict-transparent).

Serials Crisis

However, the serials crisis is stickier. A lot of publications and presentations given by librarians about OA (including some presentations I have given) mention the “serials crisis.”  I understand the significance of the shrinking library budget, and the need on the part of librarians to get the word out about this, but I have some doubts about the approach that uses the serials crisis to justify OA.

• The first one is that use of the phrase “serials crisis” strikes me as one of those signs that one has completed a ML/IS program: once jargon such as this make sense to you automatically, it is time to graduate.  To most of the non-library world, the phrase means nothing and, frankly, sounds a bit hysterical. How is something that we have been living with (some without even knowing about it) for decades now a “crisis”? You tell me how this is a compelling argument to most faculty/researchers.

• The second doubt I’ve developed is that, while the serials crisis crunching library budgets and forcing cancellations of subscriptions may have been part of the push toward the OA tipping point, I’m not convinced that OA will really make any difference to major research libraries in the end, in terms of their serials budget. Particularly in light of academic libraries and research funders increasingly paying money (via publishing fees or membership schemes) to to pay-for-OA publishers, I see OA – at last gold OA – moving, but not necessarilydoing anything to reduce or eliminate, the cost burden.

Lynn Copeland gave some historical perspective at thie preconference that helped illuminate for my why librarians associate support for OA with the serials crisis.  I need to read the full 2002 ARL-commissioned report, “Igniting Change in Scholarly Communication: SPARC, Its Past, Present, and Future” (<- link is to PDF), but my understanding is that it recommended encouraging new entrants into the oligopolistic scholarly publishing market as a method of trying to slow/stop the serials crisis.  This makes sense to me: the increasing commodification of knowledge as scholarly publishing has become more of a for-profit business and less of an academic endeavour is certainly a problem in my view.

Open Access, and the general arrival of electronic publishing, has reduced the entrance barrier into the scholarly publishing industry, so in that way I get how can be seen as an enabling factor in tackling the serials crisis. In this way, I see how, for librarians who are aware of this history and are stuggling to stretch shrinking collections dollars, the serials crisis is a motivating factor for some types of OA publishing.

However, I don’t think OA, at core, will solve the serials crisis.  Frankly, as we see more of the big traditional closed-access journals converting (in part or wholly) from pay-to-read to pay-to-publish, and more academic libraries experimenting with paying publication fees in addition or instead of subscription fees, it seems highly likely to me that OA will only “solve” the problem OA is designed to address:  Access.

The price burden/barrier will not dissapear, but rather move from reader-side to author-side (or in academic cases, will possibly just remain within the library budget, just renamed from subscription to membership or publication costs). Large publishing companies are not likely to give up their awesome revenue streams, and as for-profit companies they “should” not, as it’s their mandate to make money (can you tell I’ve bene working with a lot of economists?). And even when we’re talking about “green” OA rather than the “gold” OA that can create significant revenue streams for publishers, there is requisite cost on the researcher-author-institution side, as someone has to manage the repositories, deposits, etc.

Is this a disappointment?

Well, yes and no.  I guess it depends on your perspective.

I would venture that “merely” removing the barrier to read and reuse scholarly content is a HUGE thing, and definitely change for the better.  No, it’s not revolution, but it is progress.  (Call me a sellout, but I’m a Gen-Xer, not a child of the 60’s, and I tend ot think of revolution as more of a process than an event.) When I think of community-based researchers, students, or health practitioners who are unaffiliated with academic institutions or even hospitals, there are so many examples in which “just” open access is very, very important.

I know there’s more to unpack here, but I have to go back to the conference and soak up more interesting stuff! So much rattling around my head right now…

-Greyson

Unicorns don’t exist; net neutrality is just distastefully fair

The top story on the CBC News website this evening is “Net Neutrality doesn’t exist, CRTC told.“

Laugh or cry?

Internet congestion is inevitable and net neutrality does not exist, Canada’s internet regulator was told Monday at hearings on how internet providers control and manage internet traffic and speed.

But here’s the best part:

Congestion is a natural occurrence on the internet, partly due to unexpected events such as Michael Jackson’s death, said Don Bowman, chief technology officer for the network technology company Sandvine Inc.            

Got that?  It is Michael Jackson’s fault that you are being throttled! Hee.

According to the same CBC coverage, Bowman also asserts that deep packet inspection is necessary in order to keep VOIP from breaking up due to congestion.  I’m no ISP, but I have a hunch there are other options here…for example deploying other “shaping” technologies that don’t invade customer privacy, or the radical path of increasing available bandwidth.(On this note, I am quite intrigued by Scott Stevens’ suggestion “that some internet traffic management could be carried out by customers themselves rather than the ISPs” and interested in how that could work!)

What’s disturbing is that Bowman is not only acting as a CTO but speaking at this CRTC hearing, apparently without knowing that net neutrality is.  He is quoted as saying:

“In times of congestion, an unmanaged network is not a neutral network,” he said. “Inequalities in application design and user behaviour mean that an unmanaged network inherently favours certain applications and their users.”

Actually…an “unmanaged” network *is* a neutral network.  That’s pretty much the defninition, if by unmanaged you mean the ISP is not allowed to tamper with or discriminate among the content flowing across their lines.  A neutral network is a highway with no toll roads, no right to pull you over to see if you have pornography or the Little Red Book in your backpack in the passenger seat, and no ability to say that Hondas get a fast lane but Fords have to take the slow lane.

I don’t get how this guy can say net neutrality doesn’t exist.  However, if it works for him, I’m going to start declaring things I find either personally distasteful or bad for my wallet nonexistant.  Like…paying rent.  Rent payments definitely do not exist, you know.  They are but flights of fancy which we should no longer indulge. Also torture –  It doesn’t exist anymore.  And those people who say “liberry” and “I could care less” — totally fictional, you know.

Figments of the imagination.

Unicorns.

Canadian DTCA Charter Challenge Indefinitely Adjourned…and a tree falls in the forest

The News

In the middle of financial turbulence, potential bankruptcy, and a storm of management changes, CanWest Global has decided to seek indefinite adjournment of their court case challenging Canadian restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs.  In summary, CanWest was alleging that the ban on certain types of DTCA was infringing on their freedom of expression, especially since they couldn’t make money off that type of ad while media across the border in the US could. The case was seen as a landmark case as it was a challenge to existing law under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (a constitutional law case, for non-Canadians reading this), and thus would set new Canadian constitutional precedent.

The adjournment request came right at the 11^th hour, since closing arguments were set to be heard June 15-19, which is to say, this past week. While CanWest can request to revive the case, it seems unlikely at this point, when the company is facing billions in debt and is working to secure major restructuring deals. It appears that CanWest may silently agree with opposing lawyer Stuart Shrybman, that “the company should have pulled the plug on this “ill-conceived litigation” months ago,” and that the best option at this point is to avoid pouring more money into what is pretty much a lost cause.

So what? In short, this case has cost both CanWest and the government a lot of money since it was filed in December 2005. Current regulations on DTCA in Canada are not well enforced to begin with, and to my knowledge there’s not much indication that this is changing. However, by not opening the floodgates wider, we may be able to avoid even more expense and needless adverse side effects (such as Vioxx related deaths) that appear to be encouraged by DTCA.

Didn’t hear about this?  I’m not surprised. Somehow nobody else has either.

The News (not)  in the News

This story has been weirdly absent from the media.  And by media, I mean practically everybody.  When I heard about CanWest dropping this case, I immediately ran to my web browser and started searching for early news coverage…nothing.   A week later…still nothing in the mainstream news sources.

The medical journals? One article in the faithful CMAJ, which has offered ongoing coverage of this trial and whose parent organization, the Canadian Medical Assoiaition, has an official position statement opposing “Brand-specific direct-to-consumer advertisements, such as those permitted in the United States.”

Okay, well, I figured that perhaps this was an example of the failures of traditional media.  Maybe media companies aren’t nimble enough to catch this story in a timely manner; maybe the industry carries an inherent bias against reporting on what is essentially a failure (of the cut-your-losses type) of a fellow media behemoth.

The bloggers, though – the bloggers will have lots to say about this, right?  The bloggers are the new media, right?  Citizen journalism! Media democracy! They are us! We are on the ground, everywhere, reporting on the real issues in our spare time, without budgets to support travel expenses or copyediting, and hoping our cameras are not confiscated by the police and our tweets are not blocked.

So far I have found one lonely blog post about this, from the magazine marketing industry, which I’m sure has been watching CanWest’s case avidly, as a CanWest win would potentially open up a whole new world of direct-to-consumer drug ads, with accompanying revenue stream, for magazines as well as television channels. That post did link to one other blog, from a magazine marketing magazine.

But basically, this adjournment has been a tree falling in the forest.  Why?  Is it just tough to compete in the health news arena the week the WHO declares a pandemic? Perhaps, but the possibility of federal regulations on trans-fats  is getting press. Do we feel bad for CanWest, and not want to slag them more? I dunno, we seem to have an appetite for the details of the restructuring /fall of the Asper family empire. Is DTCA just a boring topic? Well, discussions of the topic can certainly be acronym-heavy, but there has been plenty of coverage in the media (even in CanWest outlets) about the recent Plos ONE article, “Twelve Years’ Experience with Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs in Canada: A Cautionary Tale.”

What’s the deal?  I don’t get it.

My government went to court against the largest media entity in the country, basically won, and no one is in the forest to hear the media giant fall!

For previous posts on direct-to-consumer advertising, see: dtca part 1, and part 2.

Disclosure: I work with authors in the PloS ONE article cited above, including on DTCA-related topics.

ETA – Apparently I (and Google) missed The Tyee’s Hook blog coverage of this on June 12. It’s here, if you’re interested.  Of note in this article is the statement, “a spokesperson for Canwest says the company did not ask for the adjournment and plans to continue the case in the fall” — which is entirely possible but not something I have seen/read elswehere. Anyone reading this have more info on CanWest’s official stance on this?

Just an update

There are 3 partially-written Big Posts I’ve been meaning to finish up and get out on the blog lately:
1)    Weighing electronic medical records and privacy concerns
2)    Abandoning the “Serials Crisis” argument in open access discourse
3)    The Elsevier “fake journals” scandal, Bentham “fake articles” scandal, current ghostwriting and industry-sponsored journal practices, and what health librarians can and can’t do about it all

I’m working on it!  The semester ends soon, and hopefully once all the term papers are marked I will be more blog-productive.

Then maybe I can also come back and discuss some of my favourite issues again, including censorship and sexual content in comics (again), Angus’ new/reintroduced Net Neutrality bill, and consumer drug advertising.

All to say, stay tuned — stuff is coming!

Embarrassing confessional: I am the faculty we complain about

At the Canadian Health Libraries Association conference in Winnipeg this year, there was a fair amount of talk about getting librarians (particularly academic librarians) out of the library and embedded into classes. I’m all rah-rah and yeah, that’s right along with everyone else, until I think about my own classes…into which I don’t invite the librarian.

As background here, I have a librarian-researchy type job, which is my primary professional identity, and then at another institution I have a faculty-teacher type job teaching undergraduates.  At the institution where I’m a research librarian, they are very kindly tolerant and accommodating of my teaching fetish. At the institution where I’m teaching faculty, I’m really not perceived by many people as a librarian at all.  I am very part-time at that school, and I mostly just come in and teach my classes without getting too involved with the other stuff at the school. I am shamefully unfamiliar with the library there, in part because I have access to a much bigger collection at my other institution, and in part because I’m just busy and the need for increased use of and familiarity with that library hasn’t made a compelling case to me.

I feel like such a fraud.

I’ve been thinking about talking to a librarian there about designing a “library assignment” for the intro class I teach, but I haven’t done so yet.  Why? Hm. Well, I guess I just haven’t had enough time.

I’ve also considered inviting a librarian into my class to give some sort of talk, but, well, I am ashamed to say I don’t actually know my liaison librarian yet, and furthermore, when I look at my jam-packed syllabus it’s hard to think of an hour I can cut out. The students I have mostly do a pretty good job of finding scholarly sources — obviously I’d like it to be better, but frankly there are other issues I think need more focus for most of them.

Also – and it’s hard for me to believe I’m even admitting this – I don’t want to bother the librarians. There, I spat it out.  I know it’s a lot of work to run a library, there aren’t that many staff there, I’m sure they are really busy, and I figure I can do most of the stuff myself rather than bothering a librarian by asking them for a favour.

Yeah, I actually just said all that. I’m kind of appalled myself.

I should say here that the library at this institution is a very good library.  The building itself is great. The collection seems quite good for the size and scope of the institution. Everything I have ever heard about the librarians is positive. What I’m saying here has little or nothing to do with the specific library or library staff at the school.

What it does have to do with is the challenges academic librarians are really facing in reaching out and becoming embedded. Maybe, just maybe, when I revise my Intro class in a year or so, I’ll get around to adding that library project.  But I’m a librarian. If anyone is going to see the value of a library assignment, it’ll probably be me, right?

And still I’m saying these tired old things we bemoan in faculty attitudes:

• I’m too busy
• The class doesn’t have enough time
• There are higher priorities
• I can do a good enough job on my own
• I don’t want to bother you

It’s not that I’d have any problem with inviting a librarian into my classes. It’s just that it seems like more work for uncertain payoff. And if I’m left to seek it out on my own, it may never happen.

I’ll have you know that I’m having serious “Bad librarian: no biscuit for you” feelings over this.

Obviously, I’m hardly representative of all faculty at all postsecondary institutions in all places.  And I do like to think that I put an emphasis on information literacy and research skills that is rarely seen in classes taught by non-librarians. However, if this is how I feel, when I really look at myself critically, I am quite concerned about what faculty who haven’t been through library school think about the value of bringing a librarian into their classes.

If we can’t even convince me, and I’m one of us, how the heck are we going to convince other faculty members of the value of working with librarians?

CIHR using OSS for learning modules

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) recently unveiled three knowledge translation learning modules, the first of their new CIHR Online Tutorial courses.

I don’t know much about the background or driving force behind creation of these modules, but from the website it looks like the plan is to develop learning tutorials in several categories, with KT leading the pack.

CIHR has been a Canadian leader in encouraging Open Access to research outputs, and I was pleased to notice that they are also showing leadership in using Open Source Software, as the Learning Modules are run with the open source course management software Moodle.

I use Moodle in some classes I teach, and my non-systems-administrator perspective is that while it’s not perfect, it’s no harder/more frustrating to use, and certainly more versatile than proprietary software packages such as Blackboard or WebCT.

Kudos to CIHR for efficient use of public resources and for quietly demonstrating professional use of OSS!

-Greyson

CRTC Online “traffic management” consultation ends today!

If you are Canadian/in Canada/care about Canada and  haven’t had the chance to comment on the CRTC’s online consultation on internet traffic management, here’s your reminder that today is the last day!

(And I think the website runs on Eastern time zone, so for us left-coasters it may close before our midnight, as my posts last night were showing up stamped with today’s date.)

Even though the online process could have been better publicized, I am honestly impressed that the CRTC is trying something this new and, well, fairly innovative for government! (Wait, would lack of a neutral net hinder the CRTC’s ability to try such innovative endeavours as online consultations…?

There are 6 sections, each with a question the CRTC is soliciting feedback about. They ask about things like: impact on innovation, which “traffic management” approaches you’d find acceptable, what the CRTC’s role should be with regard to the Internet, and whether/how ISPs should notify customers about their practices.

If you tried out the M-Lab tools I wrote about a few weeks back, you can mention your results in the “Impact on User Experience” section of the consultation.

I meant to highlight this consultation earlier, but, well with the flu and all and conference season starting up, it just didn’t happen. *hangs head*

So, if nothing else, try to take a few minutes on your lunch break or something to agree or disagree with some of the posts that have been written over the past month.

Last summer we were all writing letters to the CRTC asking for a real, open public consultation, and here is the most open, accessible consultation I’ve seen yet from the CRTC, so I really felt like it was my duty to go respond in pretty much every category.

Now, after all that work, I will be really frustrated if they don’t seem to respond to the input provided on this e-consultation. And I’m fairly confident I’m not the only one. Join me?

New Librarian and Archivist of Canada…an Economist?

What does it mean that the new Librarian and Archivist of Canada is neither a librarian nor an archivist; not even an author, but rather an economist?

Daniel J Caron has been with Library & Archives Canada since 2003, in high level corporate management branch-type jobs.

Prior to that he was in various Ottawa jobs including for the Treasury Board Secretariat, Human Resources Development Canada, and the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

The outgoing Librarian and Archivist of Canada, Ian E. Wilson, was the National Archivist of Canada to Roch Carrier’s National Librarian until the positions merged, and has been involved with archives in Canada and internationally for ~30 years.

Am I the only one who is a little freaked out about this change?

I pulled Caron’s 1994 thesis record from the U Montreal catalogue, and according to Google Translate it seems to be something like “Land and political autonomy: emerging configurations of relations between Aboriginal people and the French, British and Canadian governments.” No abstract on the record so I’m not sure what his politics are, but sure doesn’t seem to be much related to libraries or archives.

I’ve tried to find some of his publications that might mention libraries or archives…looked on his publications list at the Université du Québec École nationale d’administration publique, for example.  Caron seems to have published quite a bit on human resources management, project evaluation, and in earlier years Aboriginal-government negotiations.

Yeah, I’m kinda concerned.

To figure out exactly what the Librarian and Archivist of Canada’s powers were, and what s/he is supposed to do, I went to the Library and Archives of Canada Act ( 2004, c. 11 )

Excerpt:

Objects

7. The objects of the Library and Archives of Canada are

(a) to acquire and preserve the documentary heritage;

(b) to make that heritage known to Canadians and to anyone with an interest in Canada and to facilitate access to it;

(c) to be the permanent repository of publications of the Government of Canada and of government and ministerial records that are of historical or archival value;

(d) to facilitate the management of information by government institutions;

(e) to coordinate the library services of government institutions; and

(f) to support the development of the library and archival communities.

Powers of Librarian and Archivist

8. (1) The Librarian and Archivist may do anything that is conducive to the attainment of the objects of the Library and Archives of Canada, including

(a) acquire publications and records or obtain the care, custody or control of them;

(b) take measures to catalogue, classify, identify, preserve and restore publications and records;

(c) compile and maintain information resources such as a national bibliography and a national union catalogue;

(d) provide information, consultation, research or lending services, as well as any other services for the purpose of facilitating access to the documentary heritage;

(e) establish programs and encourage or organize any activities, including exhibitions, publications and performances, to make known and interpret the documentary heritage;

(f) enter into agreements with other libraries, archives or institutions in and outside Canada;

(g) advise government institutions concerning the management of information produced or used by them and provide services for that purpose;

(h) provide leadership and direction for library services of government institutions;

(i) provide professional, technical and financial support to those involved in the preservation and promotion of the documentary heritage and in providing access to it; and

(j) carry out such other functions as the Governor in Council may specify.

Sampling from Internet

(2) In exercising the powers referred to in paragraph (1)(a) and for the purpose of preservation, the Librarian and Archivist may take, at the times and in the manner that he or she considers appropriate, a representative sample of the documentary material of interest to Canada that is accessible to the public without restriction through the Internet or any similar medium.

Destruction or disposal

9. (1) The Librarian and Archivist may dispose of any publication or record under his or her control, including by destruction, if he or she considers that it is no longer necessary to retain it.

Restriction

(2) Any such disposition is subject to the terms and conditions under which the publication or record has been acquired or obtained.

After reading that, I’m still concerned. I get that a director needs to be a manager, have strong management skills. However, I want the person charged with leading the preservation of documentary heritage of the country, facilitating access to that heritage, coordinating government library and information services and supporting library and archival development across the country to, well, demonstrate some evidence of caring about preserving and providing access to this documentary heritage, and some connection with the library and archival communities.

I’m concerned that access to information will take a backseat, that documents may be disposed of under principles other than those of the archival or library communities, and that library and archival communities in the public sector will be neglected rather than developed.

Is a professional administrator really the person we want as our national librarian and archivist?

Is it too much to, at very least, hope that the person installed as the figurehead and visionary for our library and archives sector at *minimum* have some literacy or heritage focus, if not actually be a librarian or archivist?

-Greyson

postscript: Oh, look! Unsurprisingly, the CLA agrees with me.  Or probably I should have stated that vice versa…

Anti-ethnic Penguins part 3

We’re getting a lot of new hits related to searches on why “And Tango Makes Three” might be anti-ethnic. I assume this is thanks to the ALA OIF’s recent release of their top 10 most frequently challenged books for 2008, and the fact that Tango again tops the list (for the third year running!).  Due to this interest, I thought I’d just give my most recent update on the question.

I did hear back from the ALA OIF in response to my previously posted follow-up questions, and in summary:

• they can’t tell us what type of institution the “anti-ethnic” charge came from (bit I assume it has to be public or school library, and more likely a school)
• but they can tell us it happened in North Carolina
• they don’t know of any books beyond Maus and Tango that have been charged as anti-ethnic but have non-human characters
• they’re not sure how the anti-ethnic category came to be, and
• it’s entirely possible that it was checked off by mistake on the report form for And Tango Makes Three

I’m resonably satisfied, but not sated, you know? I’d like to find time sometime in the coming year to dig deeper into the “anti-ethnic” category, try to uncover some of its evolution, and compare the US and Canadian use of the category.

If you’re finding this post first, here are the first and second posts in this series about our dearly beloved anti-ethnic penguins.

-Greyson

Another Canadian Health Research Funder OA Policy: CHSRF

The Canadian Health Services Research Foundation (CHSRF) now has an OA policy for grantees!

Apparently the Policy on Open Access to Research Outputs (FAQ here, actual policy in PDF here) went into effect in October, but perhaps it was quite a soft launch at the time, as it’s not in Sherpa JULIET funder mandate list yet (don’t worry, I submitted the notification form, so it should be soon), I I don’t recall seeing it on Open Access News and I wasn’t aware of it myself until a colleague tipped me off today.  (Launch is soft no more, however, as there’s a big banner about it on the website!)

CHSRF is an organization that does an absolutely amazing job with KT, from their Mythbusters publication series to their “Researcher on Call” conference calls. I’m so pleased to see their thoughtful dedication to transparency and KT reflected in their new OA policy.

From their FAQ on the policy:

Why does the Foundation support open access?

• The Foundation wants to improve access to Foundation-funded research in peer-reviewed journals.
• Open access to research indicates that we, as an organization, acknowledge the growing importance and potential of digital technologies and the internet in allowing instant exchanges of knowledge between researchers and research users. Because the Foundation is ultimately accountable to the Canadian public, open access encourages the transparency of, and access to, its funded research results by the widest audience possible, without barriers.
• Greater dissemination and use of peer-reviewed research will serve to enhance the timeliness and impact of sponsored health services and policy research.

I love how honest and real that sounds.

Mushy stuff, aside, the policy details appear similar to the CIHR Policy:

Individuals and teams who receive funding from the Foundation for research and related activities are required to make every effort to ensure that the results of their research are published in open access journals (freely available online) or in an online repository of published papers, within six months after initial publication.

6-month embargo seems to be emerging as the Canadian standard, which is interesting since publishers are largely hung up on the NIH’s 12-month embargo.  This can be a pain when dealing with copyright forms from journals that don’t think Canada is big or important enough to cater to, as you have to sort of cross things out and add bits in, or else try to attach an addendum.

The CHSRF policy does allow an “out” if a publisher refuses your copyright transfer amendment attempt, and also says that researchers can use research dissemination funds for OA publication fees. No mention of data, but this is unsurprising since health services data is stickier than many other types of data, seeing as so much of this data is very privacy-sensitive.

My only criticisms of the policy are:

1. the lack of indication (again similar to the CIHR policy) of what sort of “teeth” the policy will have – i.e., will researchers who fail to comply be subject to some penalty, be ineligible for future funding, etc.?
2. the lack of specificity about where to archive.  Particularly given that some of this research will be published on websites of organizations rather than via journals, if CHSRF wants to ensure these research results are preserved in accessible format (which it seems to, from my reading of the policy), I think they need to be clear about a copy needing to be archived somewhere, in an institutional or subject repository.

I know without Canadian PMC we are at a bit of a loss as to where all this mandated stuff should be going, but I think a future revision of the CHSRF policy could be strengthened by requiring that all grantees submit copies of their works to be archived (perhaps with their final grant report) to be collocated in an OAI-PMH compliant CHSRF archive — perhaps a collection within one of the many Canadian university repositories.

For those who are counting, this policy makes 8 Canadian funder mandates in JULIET, 7 of which are health research funders.  It’s such an interesting time to work in the field of Canadian health research information, really.

-Greyson