Action Request: Public Access to NIH Research

["John D'Ignazio" <john@arl.org>]

For more information, contact:
John D'Ignazio, john@arl.org
http://www.arl.org/sparc/
http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/


COMMENTS ON PUBLIC ACCESS TO NIH RESEARCH URGENTLY NEEDED
Deadline: November 16, 2004

If you haven't already done so, please register your support with the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) for their proposal to make articles on
NIH-funded research available to the public free of charge. It is urgent
that as many stakeholders as possible express their support for NIH's
proposed policy.

The public comment period ends on November 16, 2004. Let NIH know today
that you agree with their concept and implementation plan. Use the form at
<http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/public_access/add.htm> or e-mail your
comments to <PublicAccess@nih.gov>.

Please also consider adapting and sharing the sample message at the end of
this e-mail with your institution's faculty.

BACKGROUND:

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has asked 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. 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
* Association of Independent Research Institutes
* 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 <www.taxpayeraccess.org/bof.html>

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 at
<http://www.pspcentral.org/publications/grassroots_email.doc>.)

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:

* ARL FAQ <www.arl.org/info/publicaccess/ARLFAQ.html>
* NIH Public Access Policy page 
<www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/index.htm>
* Alliance for Taxpayer Access web site <www.taxpayeraccess.org>

Contact us if you have questions or need additional information:

* Prue Adler, for the Association of Research Libraries <prue@arl.org>
* Ray English, for the Association of College & Research Libraries 
<Ray.English@oberlin.edu>
* Rick Johnson, for SPARC <rick@arl.org>

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

CONTACT YOUR FACULTY

Biomedical researchers and others at your institution may be receiving
messages from publishers urging them to oppose the NIH plan. We encourage
you to get the full story out to your campus. Below is a sample message
you might adapt and share with your faculty.

* * * Sample Message to Faculty * * *

Dear Faculty Member,

You may have been hearing lately about a plan developed by the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) that requests investigators to provide the NIH
with electronic copies of all final version, peer-reviewed manuscripts
upon acceptance for publication, if the research was supported in whole or
in part by NIH funding. Under the proposal, the NIH would archive these
manuscripts in NIH's digital repository for biomedical research, PubMed
Central (PMC), which is fully searchable to enhance retrieval. Six months
after an NIH-supported research study's publication the manuscript would
be accessible to the public through PMC. The proposal is available at
<http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html>

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. I recommend two useful FAQ web pages that address some
of the many questions that have been raised:

* NIH Public Access Questions & Answers 
<http://www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/publicaccess_QandA.htm>
* Association of Research Libraries FAQ 
<http://www.arl.org/info/publicaccess/ARLFAQ.html>

The library enthusiastically supports the NIH proposal. We are not alone
in our support -- all the major library associations are strongly behind
it. This is not because we believe 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.

Support for the NIH plan also has come from within the scientific
community, including the National Academy of Sciences and 25 Nobel Prize
winners. You'll find links to some of the relevant endorsements at
<http://www.arl.org/info/publicaccess/letters.html>.

The NIH proposal is a well-reasoned, incremental step that carefully
balances the interests of all the stakeholders. To register your view,
visit the NIH Public Access Policy Comment Web Page at
<http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/public_access/add.htm>. The public
comment period ends on November 16, 2004.

* * * End * * *