Publisher policies on NIH-funded authorsIn April, a few journals had already adopted policies on how their NIH-funded authors would be allowed to comply with the NIH public-access policy. I described them in SOAN for 4/2/05.
SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #86
June 2, 2005
by Peter Suber
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3997169/suber_news84.html#nih
Several more journals and publishers have announced their policies since then and it's time to catch up. But before I get into detail, here's the pattern.
Open-access journals and publishers are cooperating fully with the NIH request. In most cases (e.g. BMC and PLoS) they already deposit their articles in PubMed Central, whether or not the authors have NIH funding. In response to the NIH policy, they have made clear that they will continue this practice, will deposit the published versions of the articles, and will authorize immediate public access.
All the toll-access journals and publishers that have announced policies will allow their NIH-funded authors to deposit postprints in PMC. In most cases, authors may *not* deposit the published versions of the files. In some cases, authors must add disclaimers designed to frighten users away from using the free versions and steer them toward the priced versions. In nearly every case, authors are prohibited from authorizing immediate public access and must stipulate a six or 12 month delay. In some cases, the journals offer to deposit postprints on behalf of authors, apparently in order to control the process and ensure that authors don't request early public access and short-circuit the publisher's desired embargo.
Toll-access journals with these polices say they are complying with the NIH policy. It's true that the NIH policy permits delays up to 12 months after publication, and no journal that I know of imposes an embargo longer than 12 months. But it's not true that the NIH policy endorses six or 12 month delays. On the contrary, the NIH "strongly encourages" authors to choose public access "as soon as possible" after publication.
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-022.html
In the press release announcing the NIH policy on February 3, Dr. Elias Zerhouni went even further and acknowledged an author's "right" to early public access. "While this new policy is voluntary, we are strongly encouraging all NIH-supported researchers to release their published manuscripts as soon as possible for the benefit of the public. Scientists have a right to see the results of their work disseminated as quickly and broadly as possible, and NIH is committed to helping our scientists exercise this right. We urge publishers to work closely with authors in implementing this policy."
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/feb2005/od-03.htm
According to the new NIH Authors' Manual on the public-access policy, late release should be the exception, not the norm. "The Policy requests and strongly encourages all NIH-funded investigators to make their peer-reviewed author final manuscripts available to other researchers and the public...immediately after the final date of journal publication. Authors are given the option to release their manuscripts at a later time, up to 12 months after the official date of final publication. NIH expects that only in limited cases will authors deem it necessary to select the longest delay period."
http://www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/publicaccess_Manual.htm
Publishers who put embargoes on public access think they are protecting themselves from a bad policy. But if they really dislike the NIH policy, this is a short-sighted response. They are proving that embargoed release will be the norm, not the exception. They are building the case that the NIH policy is not meeting its goals. That will give Congress and the NIH the evidence they need to strengthen the policy --by requiring PMC deposit, shortening the permissible delay, and grounding public access in a statutory license that makes publisher dissent irrelevant.
If you're an NIH-funded author and the journal publishing your work wants to impose an embargo on public access, what should you do? First, self-archive your article outside PMC immediately upon publication. Over 80% of journals already allow this. Second, consider authorizing immediate public access at PMC and precipitating a confrontation with your publisher to clarify your respective roles. Remember that the NIH request is directed to authors, not publishers. Third, consider submitting your work to another journal, especially an OA journal.
Here are the journals and publishers I know of that have announced policies on NIH-funded authors. I welcome additions. I list their policies briefly, highlighting the constraints on NIH-funded authors and omitting general support or criticism of the NIH policy.
* The four journals of the American Diabetes Association allow authors to deposit the peer-reviewed versions of their manuscripts, but not the published texts, and require a six month embargo on public access. The copies deposited in PMC must link to the published version and include a short disclaimer explaining that the text has not been copy-edited.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/misc/ifora.shtml
* The three journals of the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET) will allow NIH-funded authors to deposit their "accepted manuscripts" in PMC. Authors may not request public access until 12 months after publication. ASPET journals have a background policy of putting all their contents free online after 12 months.
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1886.html
* _Blood_ imposes a 12 month embargo on public access through PMC. It also requires the PMC copies to carry a lengthy disclaimer. The disclaimer explains that deposited articles have not been copy-edited or fact-checked and relieves the journal of responsibility for any errors or omissions in the article even though the PMC version was approved by the journal's peer review process. _Blood_ is published by the American Society of Hemataology.
http://www.bloodjournal.org/cgi/reprint/2005-04-1396v1
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_04_17_fosblogarchive.html#a111386131486210474
* _CHEST_, the Cardiopulmonary and Critcal Care Journal, will require its NIH-funded authors to request a 12 month embargo on public access from PMC. It will also ask them to sign a disclaimer relieving the journal of responsibility in case the PMC version contains errors. However, _CHEST_ will provide the published PDF to authors and encourage them to deposit it in place of any other version. _CHEST_ is published by the American College of Chest Physicians.
http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/127/5/1471
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_05_15_fosblogarchive.html#a111629545442579257
* The _Journal of Cell Biology_ will allow its NIH-funded authors to deposit the published PDFs, apparently with no embargo, but asks NIH not to request both HTML and PDF editions.
http://www.jcb.org/cgi/content/full/168/7/991
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_04_10_fosblogarchive.html#a111323988829235800
* _Nature_ encourages its authors to self-archive their postprints, provided they respect a six-month embargo. This policy applies to all _Nature_ authors, not just NIH-funded authors. When the _Nature_ policy was announced in January, the NIH policy itself called for only a six-month embargo and the _Nature_ policy was intended to show support. When the NIH extended the permissible delay to 12 months, _Nature_ did not extend is embargo.
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3997176/suber_news82.html#nature
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1467.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_01_09_fosblogarchive.html#a110538367512965738
* Oxford University Press announced a revised postprint archiving policy at the same time that it announced its new Oxford Open program. Authors who pay a fee may archive their postprints immediately upon publication. Other authors must wait 12 months. Oxford says that it revised its archiving policy in order to comply with the NIH public access policy, although the NIH does not require 12 month delays. For more details, see the "Top Stories" section below.
http://www3.oup.co.uk/jnls/press/2005/05/04/index.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_05_01_fosblogarchive.html#a111525462372609258
* The _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_ (PNAS) will let authors choose immediate public access if they have paid the PNAS processing free for OA publication. Authors who have not paid the fee must wait at least six months. In both cases, PNAS will deposit the published PDF in PMC. Moreover, PNAS will deposit its articles in PMC, at least after six months, even for authors whose work is not based on NIH funding.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M2F232F2B
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_04_03_fosblogarchive.html#a111279844149784380
* _Radiology_ encourages but does not require its authors to choose a 12 month embargo. If they do choose a 12 month embargo, _Radiology_ will deposit their "accepted manuscripts" for them (as soon as NIH authorizes third-party deposits). It urges NIH to link to the published version of the article at the journal web site. _Radiology_ is published by the Radiological Society of North America.
http://www.rsna.org/publications/rsnanews/may05/nih0505.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_05_29_fosblogarchive.html#a111755963804714065
Here's how the open-access journals and publishers have responded:
* BioMed Central will not only deposit the article on behalf of authors, but will deposit the published PDF and will authorize public access immediately upon publication.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/pr-releases?pr=20050204
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_01_30_fosblogarchive.html#a110754950601280711
* The Public Library of Science will not only deposit the article on behalf of authors, but will deposit the published PDF and will authorize public access immediately upon publication.
http://www.plos.org/news/announce_nihpapolicy.html
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1592.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_01_30_fosblogarchive.html#a110752590924799978
* The _Neurobiology of Lipids_ will permit its authors to deposit the published PDF in PMC and authorize immediate pubic access. As soon as NoP can arrange to deposit its contents in PMC (under negotiation) it will offer to do so on behalf of authors.
http://neurobiologyoflipids.org/newsstand/2005/02/neurobiology-of-lipids-welcomes-new_07.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_02_06_fosblogarchive.html#a110783354268028011
Finally, here are the two policies I covered in April, just to have them all in one place.
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3997169/suber_news84.html#nih
* _Biochemical Journal_ will let its NIH-funded authors deposit their articles in PMC and even offers to make the deposit on their behalf. When BJ makes the deposit itself, it will use the published version of the article and request a six month embargo on public access. It's unclear whether authors can get immediate public access (perhaps to the peer-reviewed author's edition) if they make the deposit themselves. BJ is published by Portland Press.
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1776.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_03_20_fosblogarchive.html#a111141169194979531
* The 30+ journals of the American Chemical Society (ACS) will let their authors deposit their articles in PMC and also offers to deposit papers on their behalf. ACS will not use the published version and will require a 12 month embargo. It's not clear whether authors may authorize immediate public access if they decline the ACS offer make the deposit directly.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/83/i10/8310acs.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_03_06_fosblogarchive.html#a111020678336074672
* Postscript 1. I've learned that on May 2, the day the NIH policy took effect, Jo Anne Goodnight, the Acting Director of the NIH Office of Extramural Programs, told the NIH's intramural researchers that the policy applied to them as well as to external investigators using NIH funds. In a memo to NIH scientists, she wrote, "[T]he Policy applies to all research grant and career development award mechanisms, cooperative agreements, contracts, Institutional and Individual Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards, AS WELL AS NIH INTRAMURAL RESEARCH." (Emphasis in original.) At the same time, Michael Gottesman, Deputy Director for Intramural Research, urged the NIH intramural researchers to comply with the NIH public-access request. "We strongly encourage all intramural scientists to submit their papers and specify the shortest possible time between journal publication and appearance of their papers in PubMed Central."
* Postscript 2. Here are some of the journals, publishers, and publisher organizations that have commented on the NIH policy without announcing their own policies on NIH-funded authors.
Robert Steinbrook, Public Access to NIH-Funded Research, New England Journal of Medicine, April 28, 2005.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/17/1739
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_04_24_fosblogarchive.html#a111465563383130445
Olaf Sparre Andersen, Editorial, Journal of General Physiology, April 25, 2005.
http://www.jgp.org/cgi/content/full/125/5/441
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_04_24_fosblogarchive.html#a111452273799608716
The Association of American Publishers, March 2, 2005.
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1723.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_02_27_fosblogarchive.html#a110982211458704467
The publishers who signed the DC Principles, February 3, 2005.
http://www.dcprinciples.org/nih_rule.htm
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_01_30_fosblogarchive.html#a110752880431069809
* Postscript 3. Here are some other bits and pieces on the official launch of NIH policy on May 2.
The NIH released an Authors' Manual and a PowerPoint presentation (PDF version) on the public-access policy.
http://www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/publicaccess_Manual.htm
http://www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/051205paslides.ppt
The NIH named the 17 members of the Public Access Working Group. The list is a mix of friends and foes of OA.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/od/bor/workgroup_roster.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_05_15_fosblogarchive.html#a111629702330036558
Jeanne Lenzer, Medical societies react against public access to findings, BMJ, May 14, 2005.
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7500/1104-d
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_05_15_fosblogarchive.html#a111616291729295050
The Alliance for Taxpayer Access issued a press release on the policy, May 2, 2005.
http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_05_01_fosblogarchive.html#a111506021459802186
I updated my FAQ on the NIH policy to reflect the fact that it has gone into effect and is now supported by new web pages on implementing the policy and manuscript submission.
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4552059/suber_nihfaq.htm
----------
Read this issue online
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3967550/suber_news86.htmlSOAN is published and sponsored by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC).
http://www.arl.org/sparc/Additional support is provided by Data Conversion Laboratory (DCL), experts in converting research documents to XML.
http://www.dclab.com/public_access.asp
==========
This is the SPARC Open Access Newsletter (ISSN 1546-7821), written by Peter Suber and published by SPARC. The views I express in this newsletter are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of SPARC or other sponsors.
To unsubscribe, send any message (from the subscribed address) to <SPARC-OANews-off@arl.org>.
Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy, see the instructions for subscribing at either of the next two sites below.
SPARC home page for the Open Access Newsletter and Open Access Forum
http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/soan
Peter Suber's page of related information, including the newsletter editorial position
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm
Newsletter, archived back issues
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm
Forum, archived postings
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SOA-Forum/List.html
Conferences Related to the Open Access Movement
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm
Timeline of the Open Access Movement
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
Open Access Overview
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
Open Access News blog
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Peter Suber
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters
peter.suber@earlham.edu
SOAN is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/
Return to the Newsletter archive