Joint Statement on NIH Proposal for Open Access Posting of Funded Research
From: Dean Norma Allewell, Life Sciences and Dean Charles B. Lowry, University Libraries
Dear Faculty Colleagues,
We are writing to provide information that amplifies the current public discussion around the NIH proposal for open access posting on PubMed Central (PMC) of NIH supported research. It has been the case that a series of communications to faculty (particular journal editors and board members) has characterized this proposal as "radical." We believe, on the contrary, that it is a measured, incremental and reasonable response to a rapidly changing landscape in the exchange of scholarly information. The period for responding to NIH ended November 16, but we fully expect that a continued discussion will occur on the subject and it remains important to make the academy's voice heard.
Those of you associated with biomedical journals may have received lobbying communications from publishers urging you to oppose the NIH measure. It is important that you be aware of the facts about the NIH plan before weighing in. We recommend two useful FAQ web pages that address some of the many questions that have been raised:
The University of Maryland Libraries enthusiastically support the NIH proposal. We are not alone in our support -- all the major library associations are strongly behind it. This is not because of a belief that it will save us money (it won't), but because it will provide you with access to research that is published in journals the library has never received or which we have already cancelled due to budget constraints. A six-month delay will effectively protect existing subscriptions. Moreover, the proportion of articles in a journal that would be available in PMC will typically be insufficient for libraries or individuals to cancel their subscriptions. In addition, support of the NIH proposal on campus has come from the University Library Council (which reports jointly to the Provost and the Senate). The Senate Faculty Affairs Committee has undertake a review of the proposal, but not yet acted on it. Support is widespread (q.v. below).
BACKGROUND:
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) had called for public comment on their proposed policy requesting that investigators provide NIH with electronic copies of all final version, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, if the research was supported by NIH funding. Under the proposal, the NIH would archive these manuscripts in their digital repository for biomedical research, PubMed Central (PMC), which is fully searchable to enhance retrieval. Public notice of the NIH proposal is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html.
The notice responds to the recognized and growing need to make NIH research results more widely available. Its issuance follows a year of study by NIH plus a series of meetings led by NIH Director Zerhouni with various stakeholder groups. Congress reaffirmed its support of the plan as recently as November 20 in language accompanying the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, legislation that includes nine appropriations bills. Key benefits of the plan are:
- By creating a stable digital archive, it ensures the permanent preservation of vital published findings.
- It gives NIH a searchable compendium of peer-reviewed research publications that it can use to manage its research portfolio and monitor scientific productivity.
- It gives the public better access to published results of NIH-funded research.
As proposed by NIH, the public would have free access to articles six months following the date of their publication in a journal. The six-month delay in public access, though not ideal, will protect scientific journal publishers, whose role in organizing peer-review is highly valued.
In supporting the NIH plan, the National Academy of Sciences recently stated that "the benefits of this policy to science worldwide and to the general public seem to us to be significant." Endorsements also have come from:
- Association of American Universities
- Chief Academic Officers of the CIC
- Association of Independent Research Institutes
- National Academy of Sciences
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce
- More than 60 members of the Alliance for Taxpayer Access, including patient organizations, library associations, individual libraries and universities, and others (see www.taxpayeraccess.org)
- 25 Nobel Prize winners
However, the Association of American Publishers (AAP) is orchestrating an aggressive grassroots campaign to rally societies, journal editors, and others in opposition to the proposal. Much of their rhetoric is misleading and ignores the substantial benefits of the public resource NIH has proposed. (See AAP's lobbying template.)
The NIH plan provides adequate protection for publishers' subscriptions. We believe a six-month access embargo is a sufficiently high barrier to cancellation of biomedical journals. Moreover, the proposed policy only applies to NIH-funded research, so a high proportion of articles in a typical journal would not be available in NIH's PubMed Central.
The NIH proposal is a well-reasoned, incremental step that carefully balances the interests of various stakeholders -- taxpayers, academic institutions, libraries, scientists, publishers, and NIH itself. It is crucial that you signal your strong support.
MORE INFORMATION:
Contact the Association of Research Libraries if you have questions or need additional information:
- Prue Adler, for the Association of Research Libraries
- Rick Johnson, for SPARC
