Comments to NIH Director Dr. Zerhouni by DC Principles Signatories

[John Sack <sack@stanford.edu>]

I am posting this to liblicense at the request of Marty Frank, Exec. Dir.  
of the American Physiological Association.  Marty can be reached at
<MFRANK@The-aps.org>.  Further information about the "DC Principles" group
can be found at http://www.dcprinciples.org/

--------------------

Comments to NIH Director Dr Zerhouni by Martin Frank, for DC Principles 
signatories - 041028

During the last three days, not-for-profit publishers working with
HighWire Press gathered to discuss ways to enhance the online experience
of readers of our journals.  Also on the agenda was a discussion of how to
ensure the integrity of our journal collections and the creation of the
Stanford Digital Repository, a permanent digital archive that Michael A.
Keller, Stanford University Librarian and Publisher, HighWire Press can
discuss.

More importantly, the participants in the meeting, many of whom are
members of the DC Principles Coalition, discussed the NIH proposal for
public access.  There was unanimous concern about the legislative and
administrative processes by which the plan was developed.  We also
expressed concern about the scientific integrity of the collection of
articles that might be created under the auspices of the plan.

While we were pleased with your recognition of the importance of peer
review in the filtering of the scientific literature, we were gravely
concerned about the plan's failure to recognize the important role that
journals play in the editing and redacting of the manuscripts.  Of
greatest concern is the potential risk to patients and others if they are
provided access to a manuscript whose content had not undergone final
revision by editors and copyediting.  This process is essential to ensure
the accuracy and validity of the report.  Clinical publishers
participating in the discussions detailed multiple occasions in which
significant changes are made in authors' manuscripts, which, under the NIH
plan, would be posted in PubMed Central repository.

The participants in the discussion all support the principle of public
access to the scientific literature, but we fear that the public would be
harmed by the use of a manuscript that might contain errors and/or
inaccuracies.  We believe that the needs of the public would be better
served if NIH would work with the publishers to enhance the capabilities
of PubMed to ensure that references identified through a PubMed or Medline
search link to the final copyedited/published version of an article.  
Such articles would then also be linked to related content such as
editorials, letters to the editors, as well as corrections.  We also
believe that NIH should spider the full-text of our files, as done by
Google and Yahoo, providing greater benefit to the public through an
enhancement PubMed/Medline's search capabilities.

The issue of time to access remains contentious because "one size does not
fit all."  Each publisher must be allowed to decide when it is feasible to
open access to its content.  Nevertheless, you can be sure that your
leadership in this area is having an impact.  A survey of HighWire-hosted
publishers has indicated that over 80 publishers are considering
accelerated access policies in the next 12 months.  This reflects the
continuing evolution in online publishing.  This program is not static and
will likely see further reductions in access control periods in the
future.  If you will accept the rights and duties of responsible
scientific publishers to conduct experiments in access control, we would
be willing to work with you to insure the integrity of the science made
available to the public through our concerted efforts.

#####