RE: Results of the NIH Plan

["T Scott Plutchak" <tscott@uab.edu>]

Authors having access to the "final copy reflecting all substantive
peer-reviewing" is not the point here.  It's the fact that despite
everyone's best efforts, no one can guarantee error-free publication.

There was a case some months ago in which we (Lister Hill Library) were
alerted by letter to the fact that the abstract of a recently published
article contained a typographical error, that, if followed, would have
resulted in deadly dosages being given to pediatric patients.  I'm afraid
I don't have the citation right now, and I don't have the time to look it
up, but it was a reputable journal with good quality controls. But even
with the best of efforts, it is inevitable that sometimes these things
slip through. (That's why journals publish errata, after all.) What gives
editors of clinical journals nightmares is that on rare occasions, a typo
in one of their journals could actually kill somebody. In the case I'm
referring to, the journal was able to quickly alert its subscribers
(individuals and institutions) as well as making a correction in the
electronic version.  If, however, this had been a journal which actively
supported, to the letter and the intent, the NIH policy, they would have
had no control over the author's manuscript.

Whose responsibility is it in that case to insure that the change is made
in the author version?  And who is liable if the change is NOT made, and
because of that some infant dies?  If the journal had, as you suggest,
provided the author with the final, approved, fully peer-reviewed AND
copyedited preprint, the error would still have appeared.

You ask, "What makes you think these people would carelessly post
potentially dangerous information on the Internet?"  Nobody thinks authors
are being careless, for heaven's sake.  But ALL clinical information is
potentially dangerous!  In the real world that we have to deal with, the
ADA policy is perfectly reasonable and responsible.

T. Scott Plutchak
Editor, Journal of the Medical Library Association
Director, Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences
University of Alabama at Birmingham
tscott@uab.edu

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Heather Morrison
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2005 4:06 PM
To: Peter Banks
Subject: Re: Results of the NIH Plan

hi Peter:

If ADA is truly concerned about the safety of the public - ensure that
authors have a version to post which ADA believes is correct.

I am not recommending any reckless course at all.  There is no reason why
publishers could not provide authors with a final copy reflecting all
substantive peer-reviewing.  This need not include final (cosmetic)
formatting, which can be a value-add to help ensure ongoing sales.

In my view, it is inappropriate in the extreme to ask authors of research
in clinical medicine to post such a warning.  We are not talking about
just anyone posting whatever on the internet.  Most authors in clinical
medicine are fully qualified professional doctors, as well as researchers.

We trust these people to record accurate dosages on a brief doctor's visit
(without demanding that anyone check it!).  What makes you think that
these people would carelessly post potentially dangerous information on
the internet?

Academic research generally takes place under much less time pressure than
the doctor's visit.  Work is generally checked before it is submitted for
publication (it will be checked by one's peers, after all).  If there is
potential danger in any errors in reporting or copy, it seems reasonable
to assume that a researcher in clinical medicine is fully qualified to
decide whether an article should be posted, and/or whether a warning would
be necessary.

Is there an open access alternative for diabetes researchers?  If not,
might be time to start one up.  How is this for a motto:  we treat our
authors with respect!

regards,

Heather Morrison