![](media/image1.jpeg){width="3.1166666666666667in"
height="1.3263888888888888in"}February 26, 2008

The Honorable Tevi Troy

Deputy Secretary

Department of Health and Human Services

200 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20201

Mr. Secretary:

I am the Executive Director of The Rockefeller University Press, a
non-profit organization that publishes three scientific journals. I am
writing to take issue with a letter sent to you on January 11, 2008 by
Martin Frank of the DC Principles Organization and Allan Adler of the
Association of American Publishers (AAP). That letter is an attempt to
stall the implementation of the **mandatory NIH public access policy**,
under which authors will be required to post publications resulting from
NIH-funded research on PubMed Central.

Dr. Frank and Mr. Adler note that many of their "member organizations...
strongly opposed enactment of the controversial mandatory NIH public
access policy as part of the FY2008 omnibus appropriations legislation".
As far as I know, not a single publisher has publicly declared
opposition to this policy. In fact, several publishers, including
ourselves, have publicly declared that they do not support the AAP's
lobbying efforts against this policy (see references below). All of
these publishers are members of the AAP.

The authors of the January 11th letter request a public notice and
comment rulemaking on the mandatory policy. They contend that the policy
is materially different from the previous policy, which *requested* but
did not *require* that scientists deposit publications resulting from
NIH-funded research in the PubMed Central database. I respectfully
disagree. The issues with which the authors of that letter are concerned
-- the effects on scientific research publishing and protection of
copyright -- have already been commented upon at length in the context
of the previous policy.

All scientific publishers understand several truths: 1) that their
content is generated in large part through federally funded research, 2)
that the peer review process is carried out in large part by federally
funded individuals, and 3) that a significant portion of their
subscription revenue is obtained from government funded institutions.
Many publishers believe they have an obligation to give something back
to the public that has provided those funds, and they make their online
content free after a short delay under subscription control. However, a
few large, highly profitable publishers have refused to do this, and
have thus forced the NIH into the position of mandating deposition of
NIH-funded research publications in PubMed Central to make them
available to the public. **[I strongly support this mandate, and I urge
you to implement it as soon as possible, without the unnecessary delay
of further public comment.]{.underline}**

![](media/image2.png){width="2.433333333333333in"
height="0.8993055555555556in"}

Yours sincerely,

Mike Rossner, Ph.D.

Executive Director

The Rockefeller University Press

rossner@rockefeller.edu

Cc: NIH Director, Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)

Martin Frank, Ph.D.

Allan Adler

**[References:]{.underline}**

1\. Rossner, M. (2007) Bending the truth with a PRISM. *J. Cell Biol.*
**179**:177--8. <http://www.jcb.org/cgi/content/full/179/2/177>

2\. Suber, P. (2007) Oxford UP distances itself from PRISM. *Open Access
News* September 6, 2007.
<http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/09/oxford-up-distances-itself-from-prism.html>

3\. Suber, P. (2007) MIT Press dissociates itself from PRISM. *Open
Access News* October 4, 2007.
<http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/10/mit-press-dissociates-itself-from-prism.html>

4\. Howard, J. (2007). Publishers\' PR Tactic Angers University Presses
and Open-Access Advocates. *The Chronicle of Higher Education* 54:A13.
<http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i04/04a01301.htm>