February 19, 2013

Start Dates for NIH Public Access Policy Compliance

Changes to Public Access Policy Compliance Efforts Apply to All Awards with Anticipated Start Dates on or after July 1, 2013

Notice Number: NOT-OD-13-042

Key Dates
Release Date: February 14, 2013

Related Notices

NOT-OD-13-035 NIH Requires Use of RPPR for All SNAP and Fellowship Progress Reports, and Expands RPPR Functionality

NOT-OD-12-160 Upcoming Changes to Public Access Policy Reporting Requirements and Related NIH Efforts to Enhance Compliance

Issued by
National Institutes of Health (NIH)


For non-competing continuation grant awards with a start date of July 1, 2013 or beyond:

1) NIH will delay processing of an award if publications arising from it are not in compliance with the NIH public access policy.

2) Investigators will need to use My NCBI to enter papers onto progress reports. Papers can be associated electronically using the RPPR, or included in the PHS 2590 using the My NCBI generated PDF report.

Please see NOT-OD-12-160 for more details.

Please direct all inquiries to:

Office of Extramural Research
National Institutes of Health
1 Center Drive, Room 144
Bethesda, MD 20892-0152
Email: PublicAccess@nih.gov
Website: http://publicaccess.nih.gov

Posted by chewx002 at 8:23 AM | Comments (0)

January 18, 2013

Canadian Institutes of Health Research Strengthens Open Access Policy

From the CIHR Open Access Policy:


Amendments were made to the CIHR Open Access Policy, formerly known as the Policy on Access to Research Outputs. As of January 1, 2013, CIHR-funded researchers will be required to make their peer-reviewed publications accessible at no cost within 12 months of publication - at the latest. While the revised Policy provides researchers with clear guidance on CIHR's minimum expectation, in the spirit of public benefits of research, CIHR continues to encourage researchers to make their publications accessible for free as soon as possible after publication. Compliance with the Open Access Policy will continue to be monitored through end of grant reporting.

Posted by stemp003 at 2:42 PM | Comments (0)

May 25, 2012

University of California, San Francisco adopts open access policy

From the University of California, San Francisco press release of May 23, 2012:

The UCSF Academic Senate has voted to make electronic versions of current and future scientific articles freely available to the public, helping to reverse decades of practice on the part of medical and scientific journal publishers to restrict access to research results.

The unanimous vote of the faculty senate makes UCSF the largest scientific institution in the nation to adopt an open-access policy and among the first public universities to do so.

"Our primary motivation is to make our research available to anyone who is interested in it, whether they are members of the general public or scientists without costly subscriptions to journals," said Richard A. Schneider, PhD, chair of the UCSF Academic Senate Committee on Library and Scholarly Communication, who spearheaded the initiative at UCSF. "The decision is a huge step forward in eliminating barriers to scientific research," he said. "By opening the currently closed system, this policy will fuel innovation and discovery, and give the taxpaying public free access to oversee their investments in research."

UCSF is the nation's largest public recipient of funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), receiving 1,056 grants last year, valued at $532.8 million. Research from those and other grants leads to more than 4,500 scientific papers each year in highly regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journals, but the majority of those papers are only available to subscribers who pay ever-increasing fees to the journals. The 10-campus University of California (UC) system spends close to $40 million each year to buy access to journals.

Such restrictions and costs have been cited among the obstacles in translating scientific advances from laboratory research into improved clinical care.

The policy, an FAQ, and letters of support from campus schools and committees, are available at:


Posted by stemp003 at 1:51 PM | Comments (0)

September 30, 2011

Princeton faculty committee votes to approve open access policy

Princeton has now joined institutions like Harvard, MIT, and the University of Kansas in approving a policy whereby Princeton is authorized to place a copy of a faculty member's scholarly article in the institution's online repository. As with the other schools, faculty members can opt out of the policy if they obtain a waiver.

From the Chronicle of Higher Education's Sept. 29 article on the policy:

"Both the library and members of the faculty, principally in the sciences, have been thinking for some time that we would like to take a concrete step toward making the publications of our extraordinary faculty freely available to a much larger audience and not restricted to those who can afford to pay journal subscription fees," said Karin Trainer, Princeton's university librarian. She said they had encountered "no resistance at all" to the idea among faculty members.

The new mandate permits professors to post copies of articles online in "not-for-a-fee venues," including personal and university Web sites. The faculty advisory committee that recommended the policy said that it will keep faculty members "from giving away all their rights when they publish in a journal."


Career pressure on junior scholars as well as differences in publishing practices among disciplines"mean that some faculty are not in fact going to be in a position to comply with the new policy without asking for a waiver," Ms. Trainer said. "And we know that." She added that even faculty members likely to ask for waivers "understood that it was in the overall university's best interests to have such a policy in place."

Posted by stemp003 at 11:10 AM | Comments (0)

August 19, 2011

Open Access Coalition formed by 22 academic institutions

From the University of Kansas Aug. 3, 2011 news release:

The university has now taken the lead in forming a coalition with 21 other universities and colleges with established faculty open access policies in North America -- such as Harvard University, Stanford University, Duke University and Concordia University in Montreal -- to establish the new Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions.

Known as COAPI, the group will collaborate and share implementation strategies and advocate on a national level for institutions with open access policies.


Their next steps will include a pre-conference meeting at the Berlin 9 Open Access Conference in November in Washington, D.C.


Marc L. Greenberg, professor and chair of the Slavic Languages and Literatures department, also participated in the teleconference.

"I always keep the idea of 'knowledge as a public good' in mind in doing work for open access," Greenberg said, "and I view what we do as part of renegotiating the social contract between universities and society. Universities belong to the public."


Great interest was expressed to form COAPI during a conference call with representatives from these institutions with faculty open access policies:

• Arizona State University
• Brigham Young University
• Columbia University
• Concordia University
• Duke University
• Emory University
• Gustavus Adolphus College
• Harvard University
• Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)
• Lafayette College
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
• Oberlin College
• Oregon State University
• Rollins College
• Stanford University
• Trinity University
• University of Hawaii-Manoa
• University of Kansas
• University of North Texas
• University of Northern Colorado
• University of Oregon
• Wake Forest University

Posted by stemp003 at 3:59 PM | Comments (0)

April 14, 2011

University of North Texas Faculty Senate approves open access policy

On March 9, 2011, the UNT Faculty Senate voted overwhelmingly to support the UNT Policy on Open Access to Scholarly Works.Work on the policy began in 2010 with the establishment of an Open Access Policy Committee. The Committee developed drafts of the policy document, revised with input from faculty members, Faculty Senators, external reviewers, and others. Faculty Senate approval is a major milestone in the process of adopting and approving this policy as an official UNT policy.


Some key aspects of the policy:

  • Each UNT Community Member deposits in the UNT Libraries scholarly works repository a final version of his/her scholarly works to which he or she made intellectual contributions. The determination of what comprises a final version is made by the community member.
  • The policy does not require transfer of copyright to UNT nor does it prescribe or encourage any particular venue for scholarly publication.
  • A UNT Community Member can request a waiver from granting UNT a license for dissemination and preservation of a peer-reviewed, accepted-for-publication journal article. The specific procedure for requesting a waiver will be developed as part of the implementation of the policy, but the intent is to minimize the effort by the UNT Community Member to initiate the request. Most likely it will be done electronically through the submission system, which will be specified as part of the implementation.
Posted by stemp003 at 12:00 PM | Comments (0)

November 5, 2010

Agricultural Research Service of US Dept. of Agriculture adopts open access mandate

On October 18, the Agricultural Research Service issued Procedures for Publishing in Non-USDA Media (Outside Publishing). From the mandate for ARS authors:

For manuscripts published in scientific journals, proceedings of workshops, conferences, and symposia, or technical and research reports, etc., prepared for refereed and non-refereed publications, an electronic copy of the final published version (either in a PDF file or other standard format) should be sent within three months following publication to the National Agricultural Library (NAL). The submission form may be located on the Digitop Homepage. Every article in the Digital Repository is publicly accessible through an unbreakable hyperlink and also available via links in the AGRICOLA database.
Posted by stemp003 at 2:22 PM | Comments (0)

March 26, 2010

Academic Council at Duke unanimously adopts Open Access policy

From Kevin Smith's March 19 entry on the Scholarly Communications @ Duke blog:

Yesterday the Academic Council at Duke University unanimously adopted an Open Access policy for scholarly articles written by the Duke faculty.


[W]e were all surprised to find that the idea of open access itself was fairly uncontroversial. Most of the difficult challenges we faced had to do with the process that will be implemented for faculty to make their works available in a repository, not the concept of openness. Now we are faced with developing procedures and systems that will be easy and intuitive for faculty, which may be the greatest challenge yet. Our faculty have told us, in essence, that if we build it they will come, as long as we build it well.


There were, of course, questions about the impact of OA on journals, and the presence on the task force of a representative of the Duke University Press and others with ties to traditional publishing was a great help. But it is also true that we heard a lot of complaints directed against the traditional models of scholarly communication from the faculty.

One thing that librarians often believe is that faculty will only be motivated for open access by their own self-interest -- impact, citation and the like. But yesterday [English professor] Cathy Davidson made an eloquent plea for greater access for people around the world who are blocked by high subscriptions costs and other "toll-access" policies. All round the room, heads were nodding as she spoke. I was reminded that most faculty members genuinely do care about the overall welfare of scholarship and learning.

The March 12 article from Duke's daily newspaper, Duke Today, explains the policy development in more detail. A key excerpt:

In situations where an author or publisher objects to Duke providing open access to an article, the faculty member could opt out of having the article appear publicly in the repository, though Duke may still keep a "dark" copy for archival purposes. Where publishers require (or the author requests) an embargo period before open access, the Duke repository would respect that.

The bottom line is that the policy should not interfere with the publication or peer-review process. "Faculty members will of course continue to be able to publish in the journals they want to appear in," [co-chair Paolo] Mangiafico said. "The main effect of this policy is to make the default position to allow open access from Duke where possible, with an opt-out or embargo where necessary."

Faculty members benefit, Davidson said, because it allows them to share their work more widely. In a recent blog posting supporting the policy, she wrote, "Some studies of citations suggest that papers previously published in this preprint open access form are more likely to be cited than essays that are not available."

Posted by stemp003 at 11:36 AM | Comments (0)

December 17, 2009

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy proposes OA policy

Excerpted from Josh Hadro's12/17/2009 article in Library Journal:

On December 10, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced a public forum to discuss public access to federally funded research. "The administration is dedicated to maximizing the return on Federal investments in R&D," reads the announcement in the Federal Register [PDF].

The discussion focuses largely on proposal to extend to other governmental agencies--such as the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and NASA--a public access mandate similar to the one governing National Institute of Health-funded research. The National Institute of Health (NIH) is itself the largest federal funder of research, awarding more than $30.5 billion annually, and is covered by the December 2007 mandatory public access policy requiring the deposit of funded articles into the PubMed Central digital archive.

The OSTP post also goes on to outline a number of the arguments commonly put forward in favor of open access, including simplified access to scholarly publications and a central storage and search infrastructure that would facilitate researchers' ability to use the materials.

Blog-based discussion
In line with the Obama administration's determination to use the web as a means of engaging with the public, OSTP is soliciting comment via blog in three parts: on implementation (December 10 to 20), features and technology (December 21 to 31), and management (January 1 to 7). The discussion on OSTP's blog also parallels a more traditional call for public comment to be published in the Federal Register.

Posted by stemp003 at 4:08 PM | Comments (0)

June 24, 2009

Kansas University: first public university to pass a faculty-initiated open access policy

From a June 23 message sent by Lorraine Haricombe, Dean of Libraries at the University of Kansas, to the ARL (Association of Research Libraries) Directors Discussion List:

Colleagues: I am pleased to inform you that the Faculty Senate has approved an Open Access Policy for KU at its final meeting on April 30, 2009. On May 19th and 22nd, respectively, the Provost and Chancellor approved the policy. The approval of this policy is significant in that it makes KU the first public university to pass such a faculty-initiated policy and puts KU faculty in the company of Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard's Law School, Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, Stanford's School of Education, and most recently, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [...]. These are all institutions whose faculties voted and approved policies very similar to the policy passed by our Faculty Senate.

Please note: The policy has been approved in concept, but the details have yet to be determined. Details of the policy implementation will be developed in the 2009-2010 academic year by a faculty senate task force. The KU Faculty Senate decided that additional details of the policy would be developed by faculty governance in consultation with the Provost's Office, to be voted on by the Faculty Senate in the coming academic year. Whatever implementation plan is created will provide faculty with an option to seek a waiver from the policy (to opt out). As such an implementation task force is being created to develop the policy details and provide a report during the 2009-2010 school year. The entire policy is included at the end of this message.

Open Access Policy at KU
"The faculty of the University of Kansas (KU) is committed to sharing the intellectual fruits of its research and scholarship as widely as possible and lowering barriers to its access. In recognition of that commitment and responsibility, the KU faculty is determined to take advantage of new technologies to increase access to its work by the citizens of Kansas and scholars, educators, and policymakers worldwide. In support of greater openness in scholarly endeavors, the KU faculty agrees to the following concept: Each faculty member grants to KU permission to make scholarly articles to which he or she made substantial intellectual contributions publicly available in the KU open access institutional repository, and to exercise the copyright in those articles. In legal terms, the permission granted by each faculty member is a nonexclusive, irrevocable, paid-up, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, and to authorize others to do the same, provided that the articles are not sold for a profit. This license in no way interferes with the rights of the KU faculty author as the copyright holder of the work. The policy will apply to all scholarly articles authored or co-authored while a faculty member of KU. Faculty will be afforded an opt out opportunity. Faculty governance in consultation with the Provost's office will develop the details of the policy which will be submitted for approval by the Faculty Senate."

Also, the week before, Harvard issued this press release (excerpted):

The faculty of the Harvard Graduate School of Education (HGSE) voted overwhelmingly at its last faculty meeting to allow the university to make all faculty members' scholarly articles publicly available online. The resolution makes HGSE the fourth of Harvard's 10 schools to endorse open access to faculty research publications. The Faculties of Arts and Sciences, the Harvard Law School, and the Harvard Kennedy School all passed similar policies in recent months.
As a result of the resolution, HGSE faculty will now provide their scholarly articles to the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication for deposit in an open access digital repository that is currently under development. When the repository launches later this year, the contents will be freely available to the public, unless an author chooses to embargo or block access. The policy makes rights sharing with publishers and self-archiving the default, while allowing faculty to waive Harvard's license on a case-by-case basis, at the author's discretion.

Posted by stemp003 at 4:56 PM | Comments (0)

May 22, 2009

The first OA mandate anywhere by a humanities department

From Peter Suber's SPARC Open Access Forum:

On Wednesday, May 14th, by unanimous vote, the faculty of the Department of Romance Languages at the University of Oregon adopted an Open Access mandate [...]. This mandate is the first (according to ROAR) such mandate in the world by any Department in the Humanities and the 3rd in Oregon (after OSU Library faculty and UO Library faculty). It is distinguished by the stipulation that URLs of self-archived postprints are to be included in all materials submitted to the Department for purposes of review and promotion.

Suber makes these two comments:

* This is one of the strongest policies anywhere. It starts with a Harvard-style mandate-plus-waiver policy and then adds a libre OA license (CC-BY-NC-ND). It seems to say that promotion review of journal articles will be limited to those on deposit in the repository (a desirable feature pioneered by Napier Edinburgh and Liege). Moreover, it does not allow embargoes beyond the date of publication unless the author seeks a waiver. All this in another unanimous vote. Kudos to the whole department.
* As the announcement notes, this is the first OA mandate anywhere by a humanities department. I believe it makes the U of Oregon the first university anywhere with two departmental mandates. The UO library faculty adopted an OA mandate one week ago today --also by a unanimous vote. (Harvard has three schools with mandates but they are not departments.) This is the start of what Arthur Sale called a patchwork mandate and suggests that we'll soon see mandates from other Oregon departments.

Posted by stemp003 at 4:56 PM | Comments (0)

April 17, 2009

Harvard and American Physical Society reach agreement on public access mandate

On April 9, Harvard and APS have issued a joint press release, from which the following is excerpted:

The Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication and the American Physical Society (APS) announced jointly today that they have entered into an agreement to facilitate faculty compliance with the University’s open access policies when Harvard faculty members publish in the APS journals, comprising Physical Review, Physical Review Letters, and Reviews of Modern Physics. As a result of the new agreement, APS recognizes Harvard's open access license and will not require copyright agreement addenda or waivers, in exchange for Harvard's clarification of its intended use of the license. In general terms, in exercising its license under the open access policies, Harvard will not use a facsimile of the published version without permission of the publisher, will not charge for the display or distribution of those articles, and will provide an online link to the publisher's definitive version of the articles where possible. The agreement does not restrict fair use of the articles in any way.

Three of Harvard’s ten faculties have passed open access resolutions within the past 14 months, most recently Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. The main beneficiaries of the Harvard-APS agreement will be physics faculty members, who are no longer obliged to acquire waivers of Harvard’s prior license. In addition, other institutions and their authors may find the agreement to be a useful model in their interactions with APS and other scholarly publishers.

Posted by stemp003 at 12:00 PM | Comments (0)

March 26, 2009

MIT adopts Open Access policy

By a unanimous vote of its faculty on March 18, MIT now mandates that its faculty must provide an electronic copy of the final version of a journal article for inclusion in the institution's digital repository. As with Harvard's recent mandate, there is an opt-out allowance, provided the faculty member informs MIT of the reason. MIT's press release is here:


Posted by stemp003 at 1:04 PM | Comments (0)

February 20, 2009

Open Access resolution passes unanimously at Boston University

On February 11, an Open Access resolution was passed unanimously by both the Boston University Faculty and University councils. Robert Hudson, BU's University Librarian, stated: "Although the resolution falls short of being a mandated policy (this helped with the unanimity of the governing bodies), it applies to the entire University. We think that this is a nearly unique approach for a large and comprehensive institution."

In an article in the campus newspaper BU Today, Wendy Mariner, the chair of the Faculty Council and a professor at the School of Law, at the School of Public Health, and at the School of Medicine, said “We believe this is the first time that a university as a whole has taken a stand on behalf of the university as opposed to a single school or college. We are looking forward to new forms of publication in the 21st century that will transform the ways that knowledge and information are shared.”

The article also noted faculty reaction:

The increased ownership and control is good news for researchers such as Barbara Millen, a professor and chair of the graduate nutrition program at the School of Medicine. Working on a book about nutrition research at one point in her career, Millen found herself in the paradoxical position of having to seek permission to use her own data after it was published in a journal that retained the copyright to her work. The challenge, says Millen, who cochaired the University Council committee that recommended the open access initiative, will be providing faculty with the tools to make their research available online.

“Open access will really highlight the tremendous productivity of our faculty,” says Millen. “Among the more important things needed to make it work is a collaboration between the libraries and our faculty to get their research onto the Web. It’s not an inconsequential task.”

Also, the article highlighted a compelling statistic -- that "Last year, according to an editorial in Environmental Health, only about 10 percent of published scientific articles were accessible without restrictions."

Posted by stemp003 at 11:40 AM | Comments (0)

Ask your Representative to oppose H.R. 801 -- The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

H.R. 801 is designed to amend current copyright law and create a new category of copyrighted works (Section 201, Title 17). SPARC (The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition) asks all supporters of public access to contact your Representative no later than February 28, 2009 to express your support for public access to taxpayer-funded research and ask that he or she oppose H.R.801. Draft letter text is included below. Contact information for Minnesota's Congressional Delegation is available at: http://www1.umn.edu/urelate/govrel/delegation.html

From SPARC's February 11, 2009 press release:

In effect, [H.R. 801] would:

1. Prohibit all U.S. federal agencies from conditioning funding agreements to require that works resulting from federal support be made publicly available if those works are either: a) funded in part by sources other than a U.S. agency, or b) the result of "meaningful added value" to the work from an entity that is not party to the agreement.

2. Prohibit U.S. agencies from obtaining a license to publicly distribute, perform, or display such work by, for example, placing it on the Internet.

3. Stifle access to a broad range of federally funded works, overturning the crucially important NIH Public Access Policy and preventing other agencies from implementing similar policies.

4. Because it is so broadly framed, the proposed bill would require an overhaul of the well-established procurement rules in effect for all federal agencies, and could disrupt day-to-day procurement practices across the federal government.

5. Repeal the longstanding "federal purpose" doctrine, under which all federal agencies that fund the creation of a copyrighted work reserve the "royalty-free, nonexclusive right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work" for any federal purpose. This will severely limit the ability of U.S. federal agencies to use works that they have funded to support and fulfill agency missions and to communicate with and educate the public.

Because of the NIH Public Access Policy, millions of Americans now have access to vital health care information through the PubMed Central database. Under the current policy, nearly 3,000 new biomedical manuscripts are deposited for public accessibility each month. H.R.801 would prohibit the deposit of these manuscripts, seriously impeding the ability of researchers, physicians, health care professionals, and families to access and use this critical health-related information in a timely manner.

All supporters of public access -- researchers, libraries, campus administrators, patient advocates, publishers, and others -- are asked to contact their Representatives to let them know you support public access to federally funded research and oppose H.R. 801. Again, the proposed legislation would effectively reverse the NIH Public Access Policy, as well as make it impossible for other federal agencies to put similar policies into place.

Thank you for your support and continued persistence in supporting this policy. You know the difference constituent voices can make on Capitol Hill.



Draft letter text:

Dear Representative;

On behalf of [your organization], I strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 801, "the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act," introduced to the House Judiciary Committee on February 3, 2009. This bill would amend the U.S. Copyright Code, prohibiting federal agencies from requiring as a condition of funding agreements public access to the products of the research they fund. This will significantly inhibit our ability to advance scientific discovery and to stimulate innovation in all scientific disciplines.

Most critically, H.R. 801 would reverse the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy, prohibit American taxpayers from accessing the results of the crucial biomedical research funded by their taxpayer dollars, and stifle critical advancements in life-saving research and scientific discovery.

Because of the NIH Public Access Policy, millions of Americans now have access to vital health care information from the NIH's PubMed Central database. Under the current policy, nearly 3,000 new biomedical manuscripts are deposited for public accessibility each month. H.R.801 would prohibit the deposit of these manuscripts, seriously impeding the ability of researchers, physicians, health care professionals, and families to access and use this critical health-related information in a timely manner.

H.R. 801 affects not only the results of biomedical research produced by the NIH, but also scientific research coming from all other federal agencies. Access to critical information on energy, the environment, climate change, and hundreds of other areas that directly impact the lives and well being of the public would be unfairly limited by this proposed legislation.

[Why you support taxpayer access and the NIH policy].

The NIH and other agencies must be allowed to ensure timely, public access to the results of research funded with taxpayer dollars. Please oppose H.R.801.



Posted by stemp003 at 11:27 AM | Comments (0)

December 5, 2008

Harvard's open access plans

Stuart Shieber, the head of Harvard's Office of Scholarly Communication, talked recently with the Chronicle of Higher Education about potential next steps for his institution's efforts in support of open access to its faculty research. From the November 21, 2008 issue:

Mr. Shieber told The Chronicle that just about all of Harvard's dozen or so faculties are considering open-access policies. "Each school has its own characteristics, and the policies need to be responsive to the differences among the schools," he says. "The process has to be faculty-based and consensual. But the office can help by advising and serving as a source for information."

Ambitions don't stop there. Mr. Shieber expects the office to evolve as "a laboratory for expanding and evolving scholarly communication practices." Perhaps its most important objective focuses on something of concern to librarians and scholars alike: figuring out a system to support authors who want to publish in open-access journals "by underwriting reasonable publication charges for those journals."

Posted by stemp003 at 12:35 PM | Comments (1)

August 8, 2008

Oxford U Press agrees to make deposits for NIH authors

This week, Oxford University Press issued the following press release. Their offer will make it much easier for U-MN authors with NIH funding to submit articles to OUP journals in compliance with the agency's new open access requirement.

Oxford Journals today announced that they will deposit into PubMed Central (PMC) any articles published in any of their biomedical journals which are identified by the authors as being funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This development helps authors to comply with the public access policies of the NIH.

The NIH policy ‘requires investigators funded by the NIH to submit to PMC an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscript upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication.’

Any NIH-funded manuscripts submitted to Oxford Journals from 31st July 2008 onwards will be identified and tagged, and the final published version will then be sent to PMC for them to include on their platform. NIH-funded articles which are open access will be available immediately, and those which are not open access will be available after 12 months. To clarify, in both cases, the final published version of the NIH funded article will be hosted at PMC, rather than the original manuscript. Data feeds between PMC and the journals concerned have already been set up, and now Oxford Journals will work with our authors to identify which articles are funded by the NIH.

Martin Richardson, Managing Director of Oxford Journals, comments, ‘already all of our open access articles are being deposited into PMC. Now any NIH-funded authors who publish their articles in one of our journals will not need to deposit them into PMC themselves – Oxford Journals will do so for no charge on their behalf.'

Oxford Journals has also prepared some information and guidelines for authors of various funding agencies, which can be found here.

Posted by stemp003 at 4:23 PM | Comments (1)

July 11, 2008

White House guidelines: open exchange of research data and results by federal scientists

At the end of May, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released "Core Principles for Communication of the Results of Scientific Research Conducted by Scientists Employed by Federal Civilian Agencies" [PDF]. The guidelines state, in part:

Research data produced by scientists working within Federal agencies should, to the maximum extent possible and consistent with existing Federal law, regulations, and Presidential directives and orders, be made publicly available consistent with established practices in the relevant fields of research.

1. Agencies should develop, and update as necessary, clear guidelines regarding processes for sharing research data and results generated by Federal scientists. These guidelines should be consistent with the Information Quality Act guidelines.
2. In developing the guidelines, agencies should endeavor to establish clear policies regarding preservation and storage of and access to publicly available data.
3. Agencies should work to ensure awareness of and compliance with these guidelines, and ensure that responses to requests for publicly releasable information are made promptly, accurately, and completely....

Peter Suber, in his June 27, 2008 Open Access News blog, offers many observations. Key excerpts:

Note two aspects of this subset:

1. The guidelines only apply to research by agency employees, not research by grantees. The distinction matters because under US law (17 USC 105), research by government employees is uncopyrightable.
2. The guidelines only apply to data, not texts. This distinction also matters because (most) data elements are uncopyrightable facts.


The guidelines apply to research funded by 15 named federal agencies: NASA, NSF, NIH, EPA, the Smithsonian Institution, and the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Interior, Justice, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs. OSTP is asking all 15 agencies to develop policies in accordance with the guidelines and submit a progress report by July 31, 2008.

OSTP is calling for an open data mandate, but may or may not succeed in getting one. The statute requires OSTP to write the guidelines but it doesn't require the agencies to comply. It does ask the OSTP to "ensure" that the agencies adopt policies in conformity with its principles, but it's unclear what power OSTP has to do that. On the other hand, the agencies may comply voluntarily. Not only will they face little or no counter-lobbying from publishers, but the OSTP developed the guidelines in the first place "in consultation with...the heads of all Federal civilian agencies that conduct scientific research" (COMPETES Act, Section 1009).

Posted by stemp003 at 2:43 PM | Comments (0)

March 7, 2008

NIH funded? Ready to Publish? Here's what you need to know.

After April 7th, the new NIH Public Access Policy will require you to submit any articles which arise from NIH Funding to NIH's PubMed Central, where they will be freely and permanently accessible to all so that they might better advance science and improve health. Before that, however, you'll need to make sure you don't sign away the necessary rights in the journal's author agreement.

The University Libraries and the Sponsored Projects Administration are prepared to help. Questions about the policy can be sent to nihpublicaccess@umn.edu. We can help you ensure you have the necessary rights, guide you through the submission process, and help you understand how to cite your articles in future applications and progress reports. For more information, go to:

Posted by stemp003 at 3:41 PM | Comments (0)

February 15, 2008

Harvard Arts and Sciences faculty mandate open access to their scholarly articles

Excerpted from the February 14, 2008 issue of the Library Journal Academic Newswire:

In a historic measure, the Harvard University Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) Tuesday unanimously approved a motion that compels Harvard researchers to deposit their "scholarly articles" in an open access (OA) repository to be managed within the library and to be made freely available to anyone via the Internet. Faculty members, however, can opt-out of compliance by obtaining a waiver, a point some OA advocates say could potentially undermine the policy's effectiveness. Nevertheless, the Harvard vote provided a resonant "shot heard 'round the world" for the open access movement.

"This is a large and very important step," said Stuart Shieber, professor of computer science at Harvard, who put forth the motion. "It should be a very powerful message to the academic community that we want and should have more control over how our work is used and disseminated." In a statement released following the vote, Shieber cited serials costs that have "risen to such astronomical levels," forcing cancellations and "reducing the circulation of scholars' works."

Excerpts from LJ's interview with Professor Schieber:
LJ: Usually, it seems faculty become aware of the cost of serials after a cancellation exercise. What was the key driver of the policy at Harvard?
SS: I think that different people have different motivations for support of the policy. My own interests are in seeing that our writings have the broadest distribution feasible. We've also gone through stringent serials reviews with large levels of cancellations, even at Harvard, whose library is the largest academic library in the world. If we can't afford a sufficiently broad set of journals here, you can imagine the constraints that other research institutions are in. The open access policy just voted is intended to make sure that our writings are widely available in the face of these widespread cancellations.


LJ: With tenure and advancement very much tied to publication, any thoughts on how this motion might affect publication issues?
SS: It is important to keep in mind that the kind of open access distribution through repositories is completely separate from the process of reviewing, vetting, editing, and imprimatur in the journal system. Open access repositories are not a substitute for journals. They are a complement to them. It is important that those processes continue, and to the extent that they involve expenses, universities and funding agencies will have to continue to pay for them.

Coverage of the new mandate from the Harvard University Gazette:

Posted by stemp003 at 3:55 PM | Comments (0)

February 1, 2006

5 White Papers, 1 Policy Proposal from U-California Academic Council

On December 14, 2005, the University of California's Academic Council approved five white papers and one policy proposal for Systemwide Academic Senate Review. The papers are the product of the Council's Special Committee on Scholarly Communication (SCSC) and, under the collective title Responding to the Challenges Facing Scholarly Communication, include:

* Evaluation of Publications in Academic Personnel Processes
* The Case of Journal Publishing
* The Case of Scholarly Book Publishing
* Scholarly Societies and Scholarly Communication
* The Case of Scholars' Management of Their Copyright
* Proposal for UC Faculty - Scholarly Work Copyright Rights Policy


Posted by stemp003 at 3:55 PM | Comments (0)

October 6, 2005

Cornell Faculty Senate Endorses Resolution on Open Access and Scholarly Communication

(Ithaca, NY, May 17, 2005) The Cornell University Faculty Senate endorsed a resolution concerning scholarly publishing at its meeting on May 11, 2005.

The resolution, introduced by the University Faculty Library Board, responds to the increasingly excessive prices of some scholarly publications and encourages the open access publication of scholarship.

Sarah E. Thomas, Carl A. Kroch University Librarian, thanked the University Faculty Library Board for their energetic engagement on behalf of increasing dissemination of scholarship through open access. "Cornell faculty have been leaders in speaking out on behalf of reasonably priced scholarly journals, and their efforts have had a world-wide impact," she said.

The resolution urges tenured faculty to cease supporting publishers who engage in exorbitant pricing, by not submitting papers to, or refereeing for, the journals sold by those publishers, and by resigning from their editorial boards if more reasonable pricing policies are not forthcoming.

Examples of Cornell faculty and librarians who have already taken action include:

Eberhard Bodenschatz, professor of physics, who became the editor in chief of the New Journal of Physics, a successful open access journal. The journal is financed by author charges, is free for all readers through the world-wide web, and provides a less-expensive, high quality scholarly alternative.

W. Brutsaert, W.L. Lewis professor of civil and environmental engineering, publishes his work in society journals. He notes most commercial journals do not levy page charges and states "this is a seductive tactic for academic authors, who are invariably strapped for research funds. But it is definitely a poisoned gift. The pricing structure of many commercial journals has gotten so totally out of hand that many libraries can no longer afford to subscribe to them. As a result, authors who continue to give preference to commercial over society journals will go increasingly unread by their colleagues."

Karen Calhoun, Associate University Librarian for Technical Services, recently resigned as assistant editor for the journal Library Collections, Acquisitions and Technical Services because of publisher Elsevier's pricing policies; she also chose to seek publication of a scholarly article in a different journal.

The resolution ... is available via Cornell University Library's scholarly communication Website: http://www.library.cornell.edu/scholarlycomm/resolution.html

Posted by stemp003 at 9:23 AM | Comments (0)

May 5, 2005

NIH Public Access Policy comes into effect

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research came into effect this week.

The policy applies to any "research supported, in whole or in part, with direct costs from NIH". From May 2, 2005, NIH-funded investigators are requested to submit an electronic version of the author's final manuscript, upon acceptance for publication, to PubMed Central.

Peter Suber has a worthwhile commentary on this event and where it puts us: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/05-02-05.htm#nih

Posted by messn006 at 4:45 PM | Comments (0)

January 31, 2005

Update on NIH Taxpayer Access Proposal

From SPARC e-News (http://www.arl.org/sparc):

The Washington Post reported on Jan. 18 that a proposal to make the results of federally funded biomedical research available to the public for free has been scaled back by the National Institutes of Health under pressure from scientific publishers, who argued that the plan would eat into their profits and harm the scientific enterprise.

NIHs official announcement of the policy, originally slated for January 11, was scrubbed at the last minute to prevent it from coming up during confirmation hearings for Michael Leavitt, President Bush's nominee to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, of which NIH is a part. However, details of the public access policy were quickly disclosed in various news accounts.

The revised NIH plan reportedly abandons the six-month embargo on public access in favor of a scheme under which the embargo duration would be left up to NIH investigators, with a maximum of one year. That change has angered many advocates of public access, who have argued that a year is too long and that NIH has abdicated its responsibility to taxpayers.

At a time when there is widening pressure for greater public transparency at NIH, SPARC Director Rick Johnson wrote in a message to SPARC members, it is vital that the agency take bold steps to dramatically expand access to NIH research. SPARC has called for the policy be changed to no more than a six-month cap and urged that NIH provide strong signals to grantees about its expectation that research should be available to the public as soon as possible.

The Alliance for Taxpayer Access has publicly released its January 11 letter to Dr. Elias Zerhouni expressing disappointment at the delay in the announcement of the NIH public-access plan. For further information: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-01/wc-aft011305.php.

SPARC encourages those interested in this issue to communicate their views to Michael Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave., S.W., Room 615-F, Washington, DC 20201. Fax 202-690-7203.

Public announcement of the NIH policy could come as early as this week.

Posted by scholcom at 10:37 AM | Comments (0)