Re: Fwd: Results of the NIH Plan

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

I do not think it is primarily the responsibility of publishers to
publicize and promote the submission requirements of NIH or any other
funding agency.

Nonetheless, I think ADA (like many publishers) has made every reasonable
effort to make authors aware of the plan and to eliminate any barrier to
their participation. Specifically, we inform authors of our policy
regarding deposit of manuscripts

--in each acceptance letter (as of late March), which, by definition,
  informs the author that the final, accepted version is available

--in the instructions for authors. (see
  http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/misc/ifora.shtml#Section3)

--on the copyright assignment form (printed in each issue and online as of
  May)

We also published the announcement from ADA's Publications Policy
Committee regarding the NIH policy in the August issues of Diabetes Care
and Diabetes.

I believe we have provided "clear, helpful" information. That doesn't mean
we are actively promoting self-archiving, which is more properly the role
of SPARC or others who wish to advance that cause. But we have certainly
done everything we can to help our authors comply with the requirements of
any funding body.

Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> Heather Morrison <heatherm@eln.bc.ca> 09/15/05 1:27 PM >>>

It would be most helpful if publishers such as Peter Banks would provide
information about what they are doing to facilitate author submission of
articles.  For example, is the ADA notifying NIH-funded authors when the
final version is available, and providing a copy along with a note
clarifying that this is the copy ADA would like to see in PMC?

It is difficult, at best, to eliminate bias in science.  This is why the
double-blind experimental method was developed.  If an experimenter
prefers one outcome, the evidence is that that outcome becomes more
likely.  A publishers who finds open access worrying is unlikely to
conduct unbiased research on an open access policy.  For example, the data
Peter presents below could easily be explained by confusion on the part of
authors; perfectly understandable confusion, when the publisher is not
interested in providing clear, helpful information.

My experience with publishers has been that they do notify authors when
this is necessary for the publishers' purposes (e.g., a signed agreement
is needed), however they are not quick to notify authors when an article
has been published.

It has happened to me that the first notice I had an article of mine was
published was when it was cited in Open Access News, or when I received a
paper copy - sometimes months after the publication date.

best,

Heather Morrison
_____________________

On 14-Sep-05, at 6:30 PM, Peter Banks wrote:

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
American Diabetes Association
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org 






American Diabetes Association 
Cure. Care. Commitment. 


Visit us at http://diabetes.org 
Or Call 1-800-DIABETES (800-342-2383)