STM Position on NIH Proposal

[Liblicense-L Listowner <liblicen@pantheon.yale.edu>]

Of possible interest, see the STM (International Association of Scientic, 
Technical, and Medical Publishers) letter to the NIH.  Some excerpts are 
provided below; the full text can be found at:

<http://www.stm-assoc.org/statements/accessprop.php>

Ann Okerson/liblicense-l moderator
_______________

National Institutes of Health consultation:
Enhanced Public Access to NIH consultation

STM Position on NIH Open Access Proposal
12 November 2004

The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical
Publishers ("STM") is concerned that the National Institutes of Health
("NIH") proposal on open publication on the NIH's "PubMed Central" web
site does not adequately define the problem to be solved and, as a result,
does not appear to consider fully the implications of its proposed
solution.  This failure to assess properly what issues and problems may
exist with respect to communications concerning NIH-funded research leads
to a proposal which does not solve genuine needs and which could have
significant unintended consequences.  These unintended consequences can
impact a major industry that contributes significantly to the
understanding of health research and treatment for the benefit of U.S.  
citizens as well as scholars and users around the world.

STM represents nearly 100 publishers from 26 countries, including the
U.S., including professional and scholarly publishers, commercial and
not-for-profit organizations, many of whom have active "Open Access"  
programs as well as the full panoply of other business models.  It is
estimated that U.S. publishers of STM journals and books generate
approximately 35 % of the worldwide output of such materials.  The STM
sector is vital in communicating medical research and improving the
research process and ultimately health care and treatment.

[SNIP]

The "six months" business model ignores the scientific fact that research
articles are often not read, reviewed or cited shortly upon publication.  
Studies have demonstrated that fewer than 30% on average of the "lifetime
readings" of a typical research article have occurred within six months of
publication, and many articles in particular fields will be reviewed and
certainly cited for many years.  Subscribers may well believe that a wait
of six months for free access is worth the cost of not having the most
current information, especially given the long life of research articles,
and many will cancel journal subscriptions.  The important point is that
it is neither the role of NIH nor STM to decide how long a research
article will have value-- that is the role for a free market.

[SNIP]

The result of the NIH proposal as it currently stands, especially if it is
adopted by other US federal government agencies, is likely to be the
closing of those STM journals unable to secure other substantial and
sustaining sources of funding, or the need to fund the publication system
out of US government taxpayer funds.  It is particularly important to
understand that certain medical journals will have a high proportion of
articles deriving from research that receives some NIH funding.  Such
journals would likely require government funding, which will place a
significant burden on taxpayers and will introduce significant
uncertainty.

STM publishers have developed and continue to develop innovative and 
accessible business models to broaden information access such as:

� freely accessible abstracts or summaries;

� flexible subscription licensing arrangements for electronic journals;

� "pay per view" article access for those unable to subscribe;

� the implementation of discovery tools such as links to articles in
thousands of journals from hundreds of different publishers (through
CrossRef, see www.crossref.org) and novel searching tools; and

� establishing standards and methodologies for electronic preservation
(including archival linking).

STM publishers have also formed and been significant contributors to
projects such as HINARI and AGORA to ensure broad access to core health
and argriculture materials for developing countries.

Revenues for investment or non-profit purposes are essential in supporting
the core scholarly publishing functions.  These include peer review,
editorial selection and judgment, copy editing and production, indexing
and other finding tools, the projects and programs identified above for
improved access, and the investments of hundreds of millions of dollars in
electronic information infrastructure and archiving.

Scientific disciplines differ widely in their scholarly communication
practices.  Journals differ from one another in their editorial content,
features, sales models, and how they serve the needs of their specific
research communities.  As noted, many STM members are currently
experimenting with business models that incorporate elements of "Open
Access" principles, whether in permitting authors to self-archive their
papers on open institutional web sites, in providing open web sites for
journals, or in providing such access via the Internet for journal issues
within a certain period of time selected by the publisher as relevant for
the particular scientific discipline.  Some STM members have been engaged
in Open Access journal projects for many years, although not yet in ways
that demonstrate significant longevity and sustainability.  Generally
these programs continue to require subsidy funding of one kind or another,
and in that sense require publishers or sponsors with substantial funding
capacities.

The multitude of business models that have emerged over many years serve
the needs of authors and customers by ensuring the wide and continuous
dissemination of consistently high-quality, independently validated
research, and we welcome new publishers and new business models to our
markets.  There is nothing new in the NIH proposal other than unfunded
mandates that arbitrarily favour some models over others.

STM submits that the research community is well served by the many dynamic
business models in the marketplace.  In most surveys of universities,
researchers indicate that they currently have more access, through their
desktops, to more material than at any prior time, and this evidence was
also identified in the UK Select Committee's report.  The NIH's own
abstracting and indexing service, MEDLINE, is freely available on the
Internet and provides a significant starting point for researchers
interested in the most recent developments in particular medical fields.

STM believes that there are two fundamental areas where greater
collaborative attention and energy among government agencies like the NIH,
on the one hand, and publishers of all business models, and medical
associations and institutions such as the American Diabetes Association,
on the other hand, is sorely needed.

� First, physicians and health care professionals need better digested
clinical material that will help keep them informed in an authoritative
and efficient manner.

� Second, patients and other health care consumers have a similar need for
professional help in selecting and editing the most relevant medical
content to create useful patient-oriented information.  The American
Diabetes Association's project called the "Diabetes Learning Center" is
one such effort, which features information written for consumers with
limited "health literacy" based on the primary research, with links to
further selected content of a more technical nature.

[SNIP - EXAMPLES]

In summary, STM believes that by not properly defining the problems to be
solved, the NIH proposes solutions that in turn create enormous problems
for the flow of information today, as well as the continuity of the
archival record of scientific progress that is so important to our society
tomorrow.  STM publishers are currently participating in many innovative
programs to increase "health literacy" and welcome the contribution that
the NIH can make to such projects.  We strongly suggest, however, that any
decision-making about such important issues should only be done after
thorough market investigation, serious reflection and significant
deliberations, and STM believes that an authoritative and representative
body of experts should consider these issues and make recommendations.  
STM looks forward to participating in that process.

Very truly yours,


Pieter S.H. Bolman PhD
Chief Executive Officer
International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers
The Hague
The Netherlands

bolman@stm.nl