Re: Results of the NIH Plan

["\"FrederickFriend\"" <ucylfjf@ucl.ac.uk>]

I suspect the clue to the author behaviour Peter describes lies in his
statement that "ADA is fairly unusual in allowing authors to post their
accepted manuscript immediately upon acceptance". Even if ADA makes that
information cystal-clear to its authors and does not hide it away in the
small type of a legal document, authors will not be expecting ADA to have
such an enlightened policy while many other US learned societies impose
restrictions. They will assume that ADA's policy is like others with which
they are familiar.

Fred Friend

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Banks" <pbanks@diabetes.org>
To: <ssp@lists.sspnet.org>; <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 2:30 AM
Subject: Results of the NIH Plan

> I thought it might be interesting to share the American Diabetes
> Association's experience with the PMC system for author manuscriupts,
> since ADA is fairly unusual in allowing authors to post their accepted
> manuscript immediately upon acceptance. Thus, the posting of Diabetes and
> Diabetes Care papers on PMC shows how successful the NIH system is absent
> any publisher-mandated delay. The success of the system with articles in
> our journals goes to the question of whether author failure to comply with
> the system can be attributed to publishers, or rather to the resistance of
> researchers and universities to comply with the system.
>
> Since the PMC system's debut, Diabetes has accepted 134 original articles,
> and Diabetes Care has accepted 122.
>
> In 2004, 39% of Diabetes manuscripts were NIH funded, as were 15% of
> Diabetes Care manuscripts. Using those percentages, we would expect that
> 53 Diabetes manuscripts and 18 Diabetes Care manuscripts were NIH funded
> since the start of the PMC system.
>
> To date, one author manuscript from either journal has been posted on PMC.
> Chu K, Tsai MJ. Related Articles, Links Neuronatin, a downstream target of
> BETA2/NeuroD1 in the pancreas, is involved in glucose-mediated insulin
> secretion. Diabetes. 2005 Apr;54(4):1064-73.  PMID: 15793245 [PubMed -
> indexed for MEDLINE]
>
> [Incidentally, it is the wrong version of the manuscript.]
>
> My conclusion is that lack of compliance with the NIH plan is primarily
> the responsibility of NIH. I suspect that researchers are not at all
> convinced of the value of the system [researchers I know are openly
> hostile to it, and see it as yet another bureaucratic burden or little
> benefit to them]. It may also be that the manuscript submission system or
> the PMC site itself is not perceived as user-friendly.
>
> Peter Banks
> Publisher
> American Diabetes Association
> Email: pbanks@diabetes.org