“The US government has now endorsed the principle that the results of federally funded research should be freely available to the public,” said Michael B. Eisner, Ph.D., co-founder of PLoS. “Scientists and the scientific community now have an historic opportunity to make this principle a reality.”
Yesterday the U.S. National Institutes of Health announced its new Public Access Policy, requesting that NIH funded authors deposit their published research articles in the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central, making them freely available online as soon as possible after publication (but within 12 months). You can view the full press release and other information about the policy at: http://www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/index.htm.
Because you are a supporter of open access and an Institutional Member, we wanted to send you our most recent position on the NIH announcement and encourage all of our members to inform themselves and faculty members about this policy. You can read our press release here: http://www.plos.org/news/announce_nihpapolicy.html.
We also hope that you will encourage faculty and authors at your institution to comply with this policy by requesting that their papers be made available in PubMedCentral immediately upon publication. We will keep you informed and share our ideas and resources on this policy, and hope you will let us know if you have any questions or ideas about how its successful implementation can be achieved.
Institutional Relations Manager
185 Berry Street, Suite 1300
San Francisco, CA 94107
(415) 546-4090 (Fax)
Friday, February 4, 2005; Page A15
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Researchers who receive grant money from the National Institutes of Health will be "asked" to submit their results to a public Web site within a year after they are published in a scientific journal, under a new and controversial NIH policy announced yesterday.
The highly anticipated "public access" policy -- which aims to make it easier for Americans to see the results of research they paid for with their tax dollars -- represents a compromise between competing forces that had lobbied the agency intensely during the past year.
On one side were the publishers of highly profitable scientific journals who feared that free access -- even months after paper publication -- would undermine their subscription base. They were joined by some not-for-profit scientific societies that count on revenue from their print journals to support their research and training programs.
On the other side were patient advocacy groups and others who argued that taxpayers should not have to pay subscription or per-article fees to see the results of federally supported medical research.
They argue that journals would not be significantly harmed because the policy applies to only the 10 percent or so of published biomedical articles that result from NIH-funded research. Individuals and libraries would still subscribe, they say, to read the other 90 percent of the contents.
Both sides expressed irritation with the decision, which NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni said at a news briefing yesterday would take effect May 2.
Proponents of quick access complained that the policy marks a retreat from an earlier version, floated by NIH in September, which had called for public access within six months. Even the 12-month deadline is voluntary, they noted.
The policy "falls short of the bright light of transparency that Dr. Zerhouni promised," said Rick Johnson, director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition and a member of the Alliance for Taxpayer Access, a coalition of groups that support changes in scientific publishing.
Former NIH director Harold Varmus, now president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York and a longtime proponent of public access, called the new policy "a significant move" but echoed others' disappointment that it does not use stronger language. Instead of requesting that scientists submit their results, the policy could have said scientists are "expected" to do so, he said.
But the publishing industry's campaign to oppose NIH's efforts -- spearheaded by former House member Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.), who is now president of the Association of American Publishers -- also fell short of its goals. The AAP yesterday said it is "concerned" about the outcome. Not-for-profits also complained.
"It's wasteful and duplicative of what we're already doing," said Martin Frank, chairman of the DC Principles Coalition for Free Access to Science and executive director of the American Physiological Society, one of several not-for-profit science organizations that Frank said already make their articles available to the public relatively quickly after publication. "The $2.5 million to $4 million that the NIH is going to spend on this could be better spent on biomedical research," he said.
Zerhouni has said there are advantages to having the articles all in one federally managed database, including easier cross-comparisons of data among different articles.
Both sides had at least one complaint in common: The policy leaves it up to scientists to decide when to make their articles public. That puts scientists in an awkward position of wanting to release them quickly to please the NIH -- their funding source -- and slowly to please their paper publishers -- upon whom they are equally dependent for professional prestige.
"For many authors, the dilemma will be painful and career-jeopardizing," said Johnson, noting that life would have been much easier for scientists had the NIH simply demanded public access as a condition of receiving grant money.
Details of the new policy can be seen at: www.nih.gov/about/public access/publicaccess_imp.pdf
From Clifford Lynch, Coalition for Networked Information:
Last week, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill held a two day convocation on the changing shape of scholarly communications in the digital world. I was fortunate enough to be able to attend part of the meeting. As background for the convocation, a number of members of the campus community developed white papers to help inform the discussion.
These include a number of superb and rather unusual papers written by faculty and taking a very valuable disciplinary perspective on the evolution of scholarly communication. These papers are available at
I learned a great deal from reading these papers, and I believe that they may be valuable not just to readers interested in scholarly communications developments, but perhaps specifically as resources and sources of ideas for other institutions planning similar campus-wide discussions.
Public interest supporters of the NIH Enhanced Public Access Plan today declared the just-announced policy falls short of their expectations and long-standing recommendations. In a letter addressed to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Michael Leavitt, the Alliance for Taxpayer Access outlined its key concerns with the NIH plan:
• The policy is entirely voluntary. Although NIH research in question is funded by taxpayer dollars, the agency is leaving the decision up to each author whether to make their research results available.
• The policy lacks any definitive time frame or deadline by which NIH-funded research must be available for public use.
• The policy puts grant recipients in the untenable position of trying to meet the contradictory expectations of their funding agency and their publisher.
Addressing Leavitt as well as NIH indirectly, members of the Alliance for Taxpayer Access emphasized the need to hold NIH accountable for achieving the stated goals of sharing taxpayer-funded research with the American people and fulfilling the intentions behind the original Congressional mandate. They called on HHS to report to Congress and the public in the near term on progress toward full taxpayer access using two practical metrics:
1. The proportion of eligible research articles that have been deposited in PubMed Central, and
2. The lag time between an article’s publication in a journal and its availability in PubMed Central.
Rick Johnson, Director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), said, “Frankly, this just-announced policy is neither what we hoped for nor proposed and it falls far short of the ‘bright light’ of transparency that Dr. Zerhouni promised earlier this week in his ethics reforms.”
Johnson continued, “However, we are eager for it to succeed. The proof is in the pudding. The coming months will tell whether NIH inspires and leads the community of researchers and scholars to accept the public trust invested in them. Today we urge them to do so.”
“What will we consider success?” asked Sharon Terry, president and CEO of the Genetic Alliance. “Plainly put, today a patient with cancer does not have immediate or even timely access to the published results of NIH research. The question we all must ask: A year from now, will the world have changed? Will this same patient have free access to all NIH-funded studies on cancer soon after publication?
“This is a big ‘if’ for all of us,” Terry added. “If six months after enactment, we see a flood of NIH-funded research posted on PubMed Central, then we will be among the first to celebrate. However if the vast majority of taxpayer-funded NIH research produced during this timeframe is not yet available to be used by scientists, patients, physicians and all engaged in promoting public health, then NIH will have failed. It will have failed not only Congress and the President, but more importantly, it will have failed science and the American people. Until the outcome is clear, we can only state emphatically that NIH’s foremost responsibility is to the taxpayer who paid for the research.”
AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition Board Member, Robert Reinhard, expressed concern for the lack of incentive for researchers to provide prompt access: “The potential 12 month delay does not improve much, if any, upon the status quo. NIH guidance also should encourage pursuit of alternative publication venues that commit to free dissemination of knowledge to those who need it.”
“If NIH is going to delegate its responsibility and rely on the good faith of the research community,” Reinhard added, “then NIH should lead by example. What better step could they take than by strongly encouraging NIH intramural researchers to ensure that any paper which bears the name of an NIH employee is posted immediately in PubMed Central.”
Johnson and other members of the Alliance for Taxpayer Access have long argued that there is no legitimate reason for NIH funded research to be withheld from taxpayers for any longer than is absolutely necessary, and that ultimately, it must be available immediately.
The Alliance for Taxpayer Access is an informal coalition of stakeholders who support reforms that will make publicly funded biomedical research accessible to the public. The Alliance was formed in 2004 specifically to urge that peer-reviewed articles on taxpayer-funded research at NIH become fully accessible and available online and at no extra cost to the American public. Details and FAQ's on the Alliance may be found at www.taxpayeraccess.org.
Press Contact: Bob Witeck
202-887-0500 ext. 19
Witeck-Combs Communications on behalf of the Alliance for Taxpayer Access
* * *
February 3, 2005
The Honorable Michael Leavitt
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Hubert H. Humphrey Building
200 Independence Avenue SW
Washington, DC 20201
Dear Secretary Leavitt:
The Alliance for Taxpayer Access is a coalition of taxpayers, patients, physicians, researchers, and institutions that have played a leading role in the national debate regarding timely and unfettered public access to federally funded biomedical research. We are writing today to share our views on the just-released National Institutes of Health (NIH) Enhanced Public Access Policy.
First, however, we wish to express our appreciation for your responses to questions posed during your recent confirmation hearings in which you stated your support for a public access policy that makes NIH research results available in a timely and accessible manner. These responses exhibited your understanding of the essential issue at stake and the opportunities presented by today's information and communication technologies to accelerate innovation and discovery for the benefit of taxpayers.
Despite our delight with this recognition of the taxpayers’ interests, we are deeply troubled by key aspects of the final policy announced by NIH. We believe an opportunity to demonstrate NIH’s concern with public transparency in its operation has been neglected. Our concerns, which focus on issues that we fear will impair successful achievement of the goals we share with NIH, are these:
• The voluntary nature of the policy. NIH has handed over an essential NIH responsibility and trust to ensure the advancement of scientific knowledge to individual investigators. Before the Internet, there were historical and economic reasons that NIH relied solely on a system that surrenders public research to private interests via the author’s transfer of exclusive ownership of an article to his/her publisher. But today NIH is able to, and should, capture copies of NIH funded research results not just the research that public-spirited authors wish to contribute, but all NIH-funded research. It is able to, and should, track the outputs of its grant portfolio, archive this public treasure, and make it publicly available. The cost is tiny and the benefit great.
• The lack of a definitive time frame for public availability. The NIH policy delegates to investigators the decision on an access embargo period within a 12-month time frame. As a result, there is no assurance that articles reflecting NIH-funded research will be available to the public in PubMed Central on a timely basis. Clearly, 12-months is too lengthy a delay in a field as dynamic as biomedicine. NIH has impaired its effectiveness by yielding its authority to act decisively on behalf of taxpayers.
Because the policy lacks both a deadline and mandatory participation requirements, it risks becoming an unenforceable “paper tiger.” It places ultimate confidence in the willing participation of the research community. Few will be more pleased than the members of ATA if this confidence proves to be well placed. But the reality is that NIH has placed the grant recipient in an untenable position squarely between the contradictory expectations of the funding agency and the publisher. The policy offers no means by which to protect authors from undue pressures from publishing interests to delay making their article readily available on PubMed Central.
Recognizing that the immediate opportunity to re-shape the policy is behind us, we recommend these actions to make the best of the policy:
• Lead by example. Require NIH’s own intramural researchers to deposit all of their final works (which, by law, are in the public domain) into PubMed Central as soon as they are accepted for publication.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the policy soon and simply. To ensure the policy is achieving its purpose, HHS should adopt the following two evaluation metrics, to be collected on an ongoing basis: 1) the proportion of eligible research articles that have been deposited in PubMed Central; and 2) the average embargo period of deposited material. We urge your department to submit an annual report to the Congress and the public on the policy, focusing especially on these two aspects. We believe it is appropriate that the initial report be submitted by December 1, 2005. If the data do not indicate that the vast majority of NIH research is available in PubMed Central soon after publication, then we believe the policy should be adjusted to better achieve a satisfactory outcome.
In closing, ATA hopes that the NIH Public Access policy will truly provide American taxpayers with greater access to the invaluable biomedical research in which they have invested. We also hope that an effective NIH policy will serve as a role model for other HHS agencies and, eventually, for other departments and agencies throughout the government. We look forward to working closely with you and your staff to ensure achievement of our mutual goal of providing greater public access to taxpayer-funded research.
Richard K. Johnson
on behalf of the Alliance for Taxpayer Access
Wednesday, February 2, 2005
Proponents of free, unfettered access to scientific research were given a boost yesterday when the government said it did not oppose so-called open access publishing, although it "does not want to force a premature transition to a different system".
In its second response to a report from a committee of MPs last summer, the government also backed moves to allow academics to archive articles published by traditional houses such as Reed Elsevier on the web. "The government recognises the potential benefits of institutional repositories and sees them as a significant development worthy of encouragement," the government said. It stopped short, however, of agreeing to MPs' demands that money be made available to help universities set up online archives.
Separately, while a call from the Commons science and technology committee for the Office of Fair Trading to make a biennial assessment of the scientific publishing market fell on deaf ears, the OFT made it clear that it is concerned about the market.
The OFT is waiting for the findings of a continuing investigation by the European commission into the world of academic publishing.
In launching its year-long investigation last summer, the commission pointed out that the price of academic journals has increased 10% each year over the last decade, well above inflation.
In its first response to the select committee report, the OFT said it refused to commit itself to biennial reporting on the market "not because of a lack of concern" but because until the commission reports it is unclear what steps should be taken. Last summer the select committee also recommended that research councils and other government funders make it a condition of funding an academic that copies of their published research should be placed on the internet. The committee also called for further experimentation with open access publishing, where authors pay for publication but the resulting article is available free on the web.
Both these recommendations were rejected by the government in its initial response, leading to an attack from the committee's chairman, Dr Ian Gibson, Labour MP for Norwich North, who said the government was "obstructive".
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005