Strengthening the NIH policyIf you remember, publisher lobbying weakened the NIH public-access policy before the final version took effect on May 2, 2005. Among the many concessions the NIH made to publishers, the two most harmful were (1) to request rather than require free online access to the results of NIH-funded research and (2) to permit delays of up to 12 months after publication. The first weakness makes the second one even worse than it may appear. Because there's no deposit requirement, the 12 month figure is just another request, not a firm deadline. There's nothing to stop NIH grantees, under pressure from their publishers, from waiting more than a year before submitting their work to the NIH or authorizing public access to it.
SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #92
December 2, 2005
by Peter Suber
Ever since the policy took effect, friends of OA have been building bipartisan support in Congress to roll-back these concessions and strengthen the policy. These efforts have been led by the Alliance for Taxpayer Access (ATA), the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC), and the Open Access Working Group (OAWG). It's no secret that I'm one among many others who have been working toward this end.
When the NIH adopted its policy, it appointed a Public Access Working Group (PAWG) to advise it on how to implement and improve the policy. When I first heard that the NIH would appoint such a group, I wrote (SOAN for 3/2/05): "This sounds like a good idea, but I worry. If the advisory group is not balanced, it will be criticized. If it is balanced, it could be paralyzed." If you look at the working group membership, you'll see that it contains a balance of stakeholders, some associated with support for OA and some associated with opposition to it.
For all these reasons, I'm delighted to report that the PAWG has recommended strengthening the NIH policy by rolling back both of the most harmful concessions to publishers. At its November 15 meeting, the group voted to convert the request into a requirement and to put a firm upper limit of six months on any delays or embargoes. (I'm glad to admit that I was wrong about PAWG paralysis.)
A few notes:
* When the House of Representatives first asked the NIH to develop a public-access policy, the House wanted a requirement and a firm six month deadline. The NIH policy never lived up to the Congressional directive in these two respects. The PAWG recommendation is not about making radical policy more radical. It's about making a weak policy strong and bringing it back into line with the intent of Congress. (Remember this when publishers complain.)
* The PAWG is merely advisory and there's no guarantee that the NIH will adopt its recommendation. But its advice will carry weight inside the NIH. And if the NIH doesn't act, then PAWG's recommendation will carry weight with Congress.
* Elias Zerhouni, Director of the NIH, justified the weakening of the policy at the time because the publisher concessions created "maximum flexibility for maximum participation". You might have thought that the agency could best maximize participation by mandating it, not by making it discretionary. But in any case, the data since the policy took effect show miserably low rates of participation, and the PAWG was clearly moved by this evidence. If 100% of NIH grantees complied with the public-access request, then they would submit about 5,500 peer-reviewed manuscripts to the agency *every month*. (This gives some idea of the true magnitude of NIH funding.)
The NIH publishes monthly bar charts of the compliance rate, but users have to eyeball the bars, estimate the numbers they represent, and add up the daily totals to get the monthly totals. In late October, Art Brodsky at Public Knowledge got the actual monthly figures: May, 401; June, 386; July, 553; August, 268; September, 270. If you want percentages, the compliance rate has been hovering between 5% and 10% of "maximum participation".
* While the NIH policy allows embargoes up to 12 months and beyond, it "strongly encourages" grantees to deposit their work and authorize public access "as soon as possible" after publication. The agency hoped that its encouragement and exhortation would bring about early compliance. The evidence shows that it doesn't.
A deadline will help, but in my view six months is too long. Moreover, the NIH's own exhortation for immediate access suggests that it agrees. The public interest in accelerating research requires sharing research results as soon as possible after they are ready to make public. Even the six month embargo originally permitted by Congress was a compromise with the public interest. (Remember this when publishers complain.)
I've often said that I prefer no embargoes or minimal embargoes, but would accept a short embargo if it's politically necessary in order adopt a policy with other virtues. I stand by that and can live with a six month embargo. Six months is better than 12, even though 0, 1, 2 and 3 are better than six. In addition, a firm upper limit is better than a fuzzy one that invites publishers to impose embargoes of arbitrary length.
If the NIH adopts the PAWG recommendation, I have no doubt that it will continue to exhort minimal embargoes (deposit and access "as soon as possible" after publication), just as I have no doubt that most publishers of NIH-funded authors will continue to demand maximum embargoes (now six rather than 12 months). I have no problem with different stakeholders pulling in different directions along the continuum of delay. But because most publishers have shown that they will take whatever they can get, there has to be a firm deadline somewhere along the line. I hope the NIH will adopt the six month limit stipulated by Congress and recommended by the PAWG and then, over time, shorten it as evidence mounts that early access is as important as open access in realizing the benefits of research.
NIH public access policy
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/
NIH Public Access Working Group (PAWG)
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/od/bor/workgroup_roster.html
NIH public access policy, data on the rate of compliance
http://www.nihms.nih.gov/
Art Brodsky's more detailed numbers on the rate of compliance
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/2503.html
Evidence that most publishers will impose the longest embargoes the policy will allow
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3967550/suber_news86.html#nih (June 2005)
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3967549/suber_news87.html#nih (July 2005)
Alliance for Taxpayer Access (ATA)
http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/
ATA press release on the PAWG recommendation, November 22, 2005
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/2546.html
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_11_20_fosblogarchive.html#113271721503841051
NIH Public Access Policy Should Be Mandatory, Advisors Recommend, Health News Daily, November 17, 2005. (Accessible only to subscribers.)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V3E22353C
* Postscript. You may have read that the DC Principles Coalition (DCPC), which opposes OA and the NIH public-access policy, has proposed that the NIH link to articles at publisher web sites rather than host its own copies in PubMed Central. You may also have read that David Lipman, Director of the National Center for Biotechnology and Information (NCBI), which oversees the NIH's PubMed and PubMed Central, made favorable comments on some aspects the DCPC proposal. But don't conclude that Lipman or the NIH accepts the DCPC proposal. The DCPC wants the NIH to use links *instead of* copies, and the NCBI and PMC are happy to use links *in addition to* copies. The NIH is not about to back down from its position that it ought to host its own free online copies of articles resulting from NIH-funded research.
DC Principles Coalition press release making the proposal public, October 25, 2005
http://www.dcprinciples.org/linkingrelease.pdf
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#113032952111448226
DC Principles Coalition letter to Elias Zerhouni making the same proposal, October 17, 2005
http://www.dcprinciples.org/linkingproposal.pdf
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_10_16_fosblogarchive.html#112964413692620113
DC Principles Coalition
http://www.dcprinciples.org/
Here's some news coverage of the DCPC proposal:
Anon., Nonprofit Publishers Offer Public Access Plan, Library Journal, November 23, 2005.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6285843.html
On November 15, the DC Principles Coalition publicly released its November 7 response to Elias Zerhoni, Director of the NIH.
http://www.dcprinciples.org/zerhounireply.pdf
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_11_13_fosblogarchive.html#113205859427620607
SPARC Director Heather Joseph commented on the DC Principles Coalition proposal in Library Journal Academic Newswire for November 3, 2005.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_11_13_fosblogarchive.html#113214823332054188
Astara March, Journals offer NIH wider research access, UPI, October 29, 2005. This article quotes David Lipman's comments.
http://www.upi.com/HealthBusiness/view.php?StoryID=20051028-060050-7979r
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2005_10_23_fosblogarchive.html#113058999367984588
----------
Read this issue online
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3942942/suber_news92.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