Re: U.S. Senate Supports NIH Public Access Policy

["Peter Banks" <PBanks@diabetes.org>]

The Senate language is actually quite a bit more nuanced that this press
release suggests. It says:

Specifically, the Committee requests that the report contain the following
information: 1) the total number of peer reviewed articles deposited in
PubMed Central since the May 2nd, 2005 implementation date and the
distribution of chosen delay periods; 2) an assessment of the extent to
which the implemented policy has led to improved public access; 3) an
assessment of the impact of the policy on the peer review system; and 4)
the cost of operating the database.

The Senate language does not make the assumption that the House committee
and OA advocates make: that the number of articles is the sole measure of
the success or impact of the policy. Cost and benefit to the taxpayer also
matter.

It's worth noting that, of the 340 papers submitted, a total of 7 seem to
have actually made it online. Much as OA advocates might try to blame poor
acceptance on publishers, the poor performance of the NLM in executing
this plan may be a bigger factor.

Moreover, have any OA advocates actually talked to the researchers who
have to take the time to deal with the NIH system? I have. The reaction is
pretty much the reaction one gets when confronted with filling out an IRS
form or undergoing lengthy dental surgery. From my vanatge point in
clinical medicine, it is fantasy to think that researchers are clamoring
for this system. Most seem to wish it would just go away so they can get
back to what matters: uh, conducting research.

I have great respect for Sharon Terry, and share her desire for greater
access for information on rare genetic disorders. But to address her
comment, if you were a venture capital company, and found that no one
wanted your product, the proper solution would be to make the product
better or withdraw it, not to try to force your unwilling customers to
accept it.

Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
703/299-2033
FAX 703/683-2890
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> john@arl.org 07/15/05 5:49 PM >>>
Of possible interest to this list:

Alliance for Taxpayer Access
www.taxpayeraccess.org

For Immediate Release
July 15, 2005

U.S. SENATE STRONGLY SUPPORTS NIH PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY
Panel Requires NIH to Record and Post Statistics to Judge Effectiveness

WASHINGTON, D.C. * One month after the U.S. House of Representatives
endorsed the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access policy and
called for measures to judge its effectiveness, the U.S. Senate
Appropriations Committee followed suit yesterday with language requesting
a prompt and thorough report evaluating the success of the policy.

"Alliance for Taxpayer Access members are committed to ensuring the
implementation of a meaningful public access policy at NIH, and we are
encouraged by this strong signal of support from Congress," said Heather
Joseph, Executive Director of SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic
Resources Coalition), the founding alliance member.  "We are gratified
that Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee recognize the
important purpose of the NIH public access policy: to speed scientific
progress and serve the public.  ATA will continue working with the
Congressional leadership to ensure the policy's success.�

The Senate report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2006 Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill requests a report from
NIH, to be submitted by February 2006, that will include the total number
of applicable works submitted since the May 2 implementation date, as well
as the embargo period selected by each submitting author.

"ATA believes that the NIH policy's success will be measured by the number
of articles deposited in PubMed Central and made accessible to the public
soon after publication,� said Joseph. �ATA has consistently asked that the
NIH provide statistics on the number of papers that are posted on NIH�s
PubMed Central repository to help gauge the policy�s effectiveness.  We
are very pleased that both the Senate and House have requested this
critical data from NIH. Moreover, we commend NIH Director Elias Zerhouni
for his positive response to ATA�s request to post these critical
submission data on the NIH public access website."  (To view this
document, go to www.taxpayeraccess.com/docs/NIH_Postings_Response.pdf)

Data recently released by NIH indicate that the number of submissions
since the policy's implementation in early May is very low.  Based on
annual data, NIH funding is responsible for about 65,000 scholarly
articles a year.  Therefore, NIH grantees could have chosen to place
approximately 11,000 articles on PubMed Central*making this
taxpayer-funded research available free to the public.  However,
statistics provided by NIH this week show that only three percent of this
number, or 340 articles accepted for publication, have been submitted by
NIH grantees.

Sharon F. Terry, President of the Genetic Alliance and a member of the
Public Access Working Group, commented that "If we were a venture capital
company investing in a new business, and we saw early performance returns
at the rate of three percent, we would not wait to re-examine our
strategy."

The ATA remains a strong advocate for immediate open access to research
funded by the NIH.  Further information on this issue is available at
www.taxpayeraccess.org.

###

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 on the alliance may be found at www.taxpayeraccess.org.

For more information, contact: John D Ignazio, 202-296-2296 x121,
john@taxpayeraccess.org