RFI Comments Results
Public Access Request for Information (RFI)
As of 09/25/2018 at 08:05:10
Total Comments = 96

Bulk Download in XML:  All Questions | Schema File  (Updated Nightly)
(Conduct your own analyses by downloading available comments in XML and importing them into your analysis software package.)  
RSS Feed Icon RSS Data Feed:  All Questions  (Updated Nightly)

Filter List Below for:  All Questions | Question 1 | Question 2 | Question 3 | Question 4
*Sorted by:  Entry Date/Time   (Click on Header Links to Re-Sort)


Comments Listing - Public Access Request for Information (RFI) - March 28, 2008 to May 31, 2008
Entry Date * Last Name First Name Degree Affiliation City State Country Role
05/31/2008 at 04:49:09 PM Crews Kenneth J.D., Ph.D. Columbia University New York New York USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  No response to this question at this time.

05/31/2008 at 02:56:21 PM Luce Richard MA Emory University Atlanta GA USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  It would be helpful if the NIH webpage included an RSS feed so notifications of changes could be promptly distributed. An RSS feed would help our institution ensure that the materials we have prepared for our faculty and researchers continues to include the most recent information from NIH. We have found the updated FAQs to be very helpful, but would also appreciate having revisions to the FAQ noted by the date of the revision. We have also shown some slides from the training PowerPoints in our information sessions with faculty and researchers. The list of journals that submit final published articles to PubMed Central is very helpful. A similar list of journals which allow submission to PubMed Central in the language of their publishing agreements would also be helpful to NIH grant-funded authors.


File Link:  Emory_University_NIH_Public_Access_Policy_comments.txt
Description:  Emory University NIH Public Access Polcy comments

05/31/2008 at 12:55:26 PM Murray-Rust Peter D Phil (Oxon) University of Cambridge Cambridge none UK Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  The information provided gives users very little positive indication that the can legitimately re-use the material published on PMC. I write a blog on Open Access and Open Data (http://wwmm.ch.cam.ac.uk/blogs/murrayrust) and the informed opinion was that PMC does not allow data- or text-mining and that attempts to do this will result in the NIH server cutting off access to the given IP. The words “fair use” are useless. In practice no scientist has enough knowledge of case law to know what is and is not fair use and the term effectively frightens many into “no use”.

I would urge that the NIH make clear what their policy on data- and text-mining is, using those terms. I would also suggest that the NIH add machine-readable versions of licences or similar documents so that robots are aware of what they may and not do.

05/31/2008 at 11:49:24 AM Ruben George PH.D. Dartmouth College & Editor-chief-Microscopy Research & Technique Lebanon NH USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  The new policy will affect all stakeholders in the scientific research community and may have a particularly severe impact on small society publishers as subscription revenue will decline with increased free access on Pub Med Central. Will NIH provide publishers with detailed and robust PMC usage statistics that will enable them to assess the impact of PMC usage of their subscriptions? What oversight or governance will monitor whether NIH’s performance in pursuit of its intended purpose is a) met; b) not costly for the taxpayer; c) not burdensome on research investigators; or d) does not have a demonstrably negative impact on the integrity of the scientific and medical literature (e.g. errors and versioning problems introduced, economic harm to journals and publishers)? What limitations, if any, would be imposed on PubMed Central as an “aggregator” of content from sources such as HHMI, Wellcome Trust, other U.S. government agencies, etc? What steps will NIH take if it is found that its Public Access Policy is hurting rather than advancing scientific research?

05/31/2008 at 11:37:44 AM English Ray Ph.D. Director of Libraries, Oberlin College Oberlin OH USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  NIH should increase its efforts to make clear that investigators are required to submit their manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, and not upon publication itself or at a later date. While the language of the law is very specific in that regard, there is significant misunderstanding about the required time of deposit.

05/31/2008 at 07:15:53 AM Arunachalam Subbiah M Sc Independent Researcher / Writer Chennai Tamil Nadu India Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  Ther should be continuing advocacy campaign. One of the problems today is that not many publishing researchers are fully aware of OA and its advantages.

05/30/2008 at 06:39:32 PM Hume Wyatt R. Ph.D. University of California Oakland CA USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  Simplification would greatly reduce operational complexity and therefore the burden that must now be borne by NIH and institutional information, training and communication activities. In addition, as noted above, we recommend that NIH develop tools and informational resources addressing:

o How to deposit, including how to use the deposit tools provided by NIH, and clarification of the respective responsibilities of the author(s) and the Principal Investigators.

o What to deposit, including more expansive information about which version of the work to deposit, and clarification of the applicability of the policy with respect to the funding year for the supporting grant. In this regard, we note that NIH's own documents conflict with one another: the Policy says that it applies to all articles arising from NIH funding that are accepted for publication on or after 4/7/08, but the FAQ has a further limitation to articles that arise from FY08 funding.

o How to identify, control and manage the multiple versions of works; we continue to hear continued expressions of concern and uncertainty about the existence of multiple versions


File Link:  U-Cal_public-access-policy_2008-05-30.txt
Description:  University of California comments on the NIH public access policy

05/30/2008 at 05:26:26 PM Adler Allan   Association of American Publishers Washington DC USA Other
Question 3:  Implementation of the NIH Mandatory Public Access Policy Additional Publisher Concerns Raises Many Questions: NIH needs to ensure that the implementation of the policy will respect the basic principles embodied in copyright and not undermine those rights that provide incentives for publishers to invest in peer-review, publishing and the communication of scientific and medical research. Without review and significant changes, the mandatory Public Access Policy could have unintended and undesirable consequences. The issues that must be addressed include: Consultation: NIH Dialogue with Publishers, Societies and Authors Non-profit and commercial publishers, societies and researchers are not only seriously affected, but also critical to the proper implementation of the policy. A formal and ongoing consultative body that includes stakeholders, and with Administration and Congressional oversight, will help ensure that a successful public access model is developed. We urge NIH to conduct regular meetings with publishers and provide regular progress reports on the matters raised by publishers.

· Many investigators are not aware of the new policy. Does NIH have a formal mechanism and the necessary resources to handle the questions that will arise from authors and journals?

· What is NIH’s timeline for amending this policy moving forward?

· What mechanism will NIH put in place to continue the dialogue with publishers that will help ensure this policy is “implemented and steered” effectively and that publisher concerns are addressed? Overview: Copyright Concerns Journals add considerable value to published papers by managing peer review and providing copyediting and design revisions to improve the validity of the published product, benefiting researchers, the public, and the scientific community. The expense and effort of this process is supported entirely by the journals, not by NIH. Under the mandatory policy, significant copyright interests are being taken from publishers, without compensation for their investments. Other related responsibilities undertaken by publishers that bolster the scientific enterprise and thereby add value to individual scholarly works include: editorial selection of manuscripts to be published, marketing, distribution, and preservation. Publisher business models involving subscriptions, transactional paid access to individual articles, and advertising support within traditional publishing and on publisher web sites driven by the distribution of “new” articles, all of which depend on traditional copyright protection, will be impacted by the policy as announced. · Shouldn’t NIH support the full value of copyright and their use in business models including those which involve driving traffic to a publisher site, and permit linking to publishers’ web sites, rather than requiring deposit at PubMed Central? Brand Protection, Repurposing and Piracy It is critical that NIH implement the Public Access Policy in a manner consistent with intellectual property protection and the intent of the related Congressional mandate, and work with publishers in ensuring such implementation. · What mechanisms will NIH put in place to ensure that any revisions to copyrighted materials such as reformatting, enhancing, linking or otherwise changing the articles respect the integrity of the copyrighted content it receives? What assurance will NIH give that this will be done in accordance with guidelines agreed to with publishers?

· Will NIH identify precisely how manuscripts will be linked to databases and other resources, and which databases? Publisher concerns about links include: a) Would links within the article obscure the information in the text? b) Would it change the editorial emphasis by seeming to suggest that certain information within the article is more important than other information, simply because there is a link? c) Would it be appropriate to change that emphasis in the context of the research and the article’s focus?

· How will NIH ensure proper protection of publisher or society trademarks and branding? Not only has there been no affirmation of these markers of quality, but all too often branding information is missing, potentially misleading users to the erroneous conclusion that the NIH is claiming copyright, or that the content is in the public domain.

· It is critical that NIH respect the rights of copyright holders to stipulate what NIH will or will not allow related to third-party use of its works. Will NIH ensure that manuscripts are not distributed to other sites around the world besides PubMed Central? Will NIH implement guidelines that explicitly prohibit third parties from exploiting content that appears on PMC without the consent of the publisher?

· How will NIH prevent piracy of the articles from PubMed Central? Third parties could commercially exploit content that appears on PMC without the consent of the publisher. Will NIH prevent copyrighted material available on PMC from being altered, pirated, made into derivative works, redisplayed, republished, resold or used for any other commercial purpose? What will happen if piracy is discovered as a result of downloading of content from PubMed Central and will NIH notify publishers?

· If deposited content will be “mirrored” to other sites outside the U.S., after publisher approval, how will the sites be established, and how would national and international copyright considerations protect rights holders? What guidelines will NIH agree to with publishers before any distribution of copyrighted content occurs on PMC international mirror sites? Compensation While taxpayers pay for the scientific research on which journal articles are based, non-profit and commercial publishers expend hundreds of millions of dollars a year in the peer-review of manuscripts and in preparing journal articles for publication and timely dissemination in print and online. The cutting-edge research that the many societies publish is rarely obsolete within a year, and may have a shelf life of five to ten years. It is imperative that NIH provide reasonable compensation to publishers for their investments and the well-recognized value that they provide to peer-reviewed manuscripts based on NIH-funded research.

· What latitude will NIH have in negotiating terms and conditions directly with publishers and other rightsholders who might wish to undertake direct licensing arrangements with NIH that would enable the deposit of copyrighted works on behalf of authors? Given that NIH’s policy would amend many journal copyright policies and effectively reduce the value of those rights, will NIH be empowered to negotiate such licensing terms, including publication charges/payment, as certain non-government funding agencies have done?

· The policy provides for publisher deposit of final peer-reviewed manuscripts on behalf of authors, and includes allowance for grantees to use grant funds in the payment of publication fees. How will such funds be identified in the grant and what has NIH budgeted per year for such costs over the next five years? Scope The statutory language of the mandatory Public Access Policy applies to “all investigators funded by the NIH,” yet does not specify whether the NIH funding is in whole or in part. NIH takes the view that the policy applies to investigators with any NIH intramural research funds or any amount of direct costs funded by NIH, even if the funding is insignificant and supplemented by other public or private sources. · If there are other funders, what will researchers be expected to do if these other sources oppose the posting of their funded work on PubMed Central?

· Will NIH agree to stipulate that its requirement for the deposit of peer-reviewed manuscripts in PubMed Central only applies when NIH funding represents substantial funding for the research on which the scholarly work is based?

· The policy also holds that “Principal investigators and their institutions are responsible for ensuring all terms and conditions of awards are met.” Yet, this includes the submission of articles that arise directly from the investigators’ NIH-funded research even if they did not author or co-author the publication. In fact, NIH-funded investigators and institutions are being held responsible for making sure these other authors are “aware of and comply with” the NIH policy. How could they comply with this provision?

· What will the repercussions be for investigators and journals that do not follow the process?

· Will NIH modify its guidelines to state that its deposit requirement only applies to peer-reviewed manuscripts that report findings of empirical research and does NOT apply to literature reviews?

Integrity of Research, Quality Control and Meaningful Public Access The NIH posting of peer-reviewed manuscripts accepted for publication compromises the quality of scientific publishing by ultimately making available two different versions of scientific papers. The first is the inferior, peer-reviewed manuscript that has not yet benefited from the final copyediting, fact-checking, and proofreading required for formal publication, and the second is the definitive, publisher-authenticated version. Given the new policy requiring deposit of NIH-funded manuscripts in PubMed Central upon acceptance, there are some procedural issues that are unclear. In addition, the benefit of access to manuscripts by patients and the general public has never been fully assessed and alternatives such as lay summaries may be far more useful. NIH should ensure that the implementation of the policy is truly beneficial to the public and does not displace other useful models. · How will the NIH know the final month of publication when the month is not always established upon acceptance to a journal?

· Many manuscripts currently appear on PMC in violation of publisher policies. How will NIH ensure under the new public access policy that individuals post the correct manuscript version to PMC to be publicly available at the correct time, consistent with publisher agreements? Will NIH ensure that embargo and posting policies are implemented on a journal-by-journal level or at least publisher-level? Will NIH provide a detailed description of the process at NIH to monitor and ensure prompt take-down of manuscripts improperly submitted?

· For publishers submitting directly, how will NIH ensure that manuscripts will not be accepted from individuals or entities other than the publisher?

· How will NIH ensure that researchers are not misled as to the accuracy and validity of manuscripts on PMC? Will there be pointers to final published versions on publisher sites? One possibility is for NIH to develop a special section within PMC for members of general public/patients to “land” on suitable information for patients and “disclaimers” that the PMC author manuscript represents only a small part of the literature, with references and links to VHOs, Patient Inform, publisher sites.

· How will NIH deal with plagiarism and ethics issues? Will NIH establish guidelines in consultation with publishers on how to deal with corrective notices, corrigendum, and retractions?

Cost The mandatory public access policy will not change the cost of scientific publishing, but will shift the burden of that cost away from scientific publishers and onto authors and the government, in other words, onto taxpayers. · NIH faces funding shortages from the federal government. How much will it cost to effectively implement this policy?

· Does this cost detract from funds to grantees actually conducting the innovative research that advances science? Measuring Impact and Effectiveness The policy will affect all stakeholders in the scientific research community and may have a particularly severe impact on small society publishers as subscription revenue will likely decline with increased free access on PubMed Central. It is important for NIH to ensure that content on PMC will not displace the definitive published version and that publishers brands are not diminished. NIH needs to ensure that PMC does not undermine the viability of journals whose economic stability varies widely. · Will NIH provide publishers with detailed and robust PMC bibliographic usage statistics that will enable them to assess the impact of PMC usage on their subscriptions?

· What oversight or governance will monitor whether NIH’s performance in pursuit of its intended purpose a) is met; b) is not costly for the taxpayer; c) is not burdensome on research investigators; or d) does not have a negative impact on the integrity of the scientific and medical literature (e.g. errors and versioning problems introduced, economic harm to journals and publishers)?

· What steps will NIH take if it is found that its Public Access Policy is hurting rather than advancing scientific research?

05/30/2008 at 05:10:29 PM Israel Beth   Arizona State University Tempe Arizona USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  Enhanced and updated FAQs and current information on the NIH Public Access site to help keep researchers well informed.

Update and maintain lists of journals that comply with NIH policy and that do not charge a fee.

Advice directed to publishers.


File Link:  nih_public_access_policy.txt
Description:  nih public access policy.txt

05/30/2008 at 04:46:29 PM Boyle Jeanne MLS Rutgers University Libraries New Brunswick NJ USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  We appreciate all of NIH’s efforts to date to disseminate information and to communicate in a timely manner. We urge continued updating of the FAQ’s and other website information as well as broad announcement of changes and progress.

05/30/2008 at 04:01:53 PM Johnson JQ M.A. University of Oregon Libraries Eugene OR USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  - Easy mechanisms for grantee institutions to receive notification of all items submitted by their faculty in compliance with the Public Access Policy.

See response to Q4 for expansion.

05/30/2008 at 03:16:04 PM Goni Félix MD FEBS Leioa Bizkaia Spain Publisher (including Commercial Organizations, Professional Societies and Journal Editors)
Question 3:  See our letter under "Question 1".

05/30/2008 at 03:15:25 PM Becker Mila JD American Society of Hematology Washington DC USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  The American Society of Hematology (ASH) has several comments related to the information and responses provided in the Frequently Asked Questions material posted at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/FAQ.htm#content. They are as follows: Section A-General Information - The information provided to question 1 states, “It [NIH Public Access Policy] requires scientists to submit journal articles that arise from NIH funds to the digital archive PubMed Central.” ASH recommends that this information reference that scientists are required to submit or publish in a journal that will submit on their behalf. In this way, NIH acknowledges upfront the option of the PMC (NIH Portfolio) Archive Program. The Society believes that researcher authors may want to eliminate the burden of submitting their articles to NIH and may be attracted to submitting their articles that will provide this service for them.

Section B-Scope of the Policy - The information provided in response to question 2 states, “The Policy applies to all peer-reviewed journal articles, including research reports and reviews. The Policy does not apply to non-peer-reviewed materials such as correspondence, book chapters, and editorials.” It has come to the Society’s attention, however, that several non-peer-reviewed materials have been submitted and posted to PMC. Therefore, ASH urges NIH to make sure implementation of the Policy is consistent with this response.

The information provided in response to question 4 concerns whether submission is required for research funded by a grant or cooperative agreement that expired before FY 2008. ASH recommends that NIH include in this response that the author should check with the journal to make sure the submission is not duplicative, if he or she decides to submit.

Section C-How to Comply With the Policy – ASH is pleased that NIH has included in the response to question 1 that some publishers have agreed to make the final published article of every NIH-funded article publicly available in PubMed Central within 12 months of publication and for these journals, authors do not need to do anything to fulfill the submission requirement. The Society recommends, however, that this language also be included prominently upfront in the General Information section as well in order to make sure authors are aware of this option and to prevent duplication of submission or incorrect submission by well-intended authors.

ASH is also pleased that NIH notes in response to question 2 that authors should work with the publisher before any rights are transferred to ensure that all conditions of the NIH Public Access Policy can be met. It is critical that authors be encouraged to work with their publishers in order to meet the requirements of the NIH Public Access Policy and also the requirements of the publisher. Similarly, ASH recommends that in response to question 3 concerning language for the copyright agreement, NIH should refer authors back to their publishers to ensure that the authors adhere to the publishers’ requirements and legal counsel. On this point, ASH is particularly concerned that NIH intramural investigators recently were instructed to only use the NIH publishing agreement, not accept a publisher’s copyright transfer agreement, and to submit their manuscript (not final article) to PubMed Central upon acceptance. Further, the recent instructions to intramural researchers state that if the journal rejects the NIH Publishing Agreement or wants to change it, the author must recall the manuscript and submit it to another journal. These instructions are not only inconsistent with the Public Access FAQ, but they undermine the terms of the PMC (NIH Portfolio) Archive Program. ASH believes that if an article is based on NIH-funded research by a NIH intramural researcher the information is in the public domain. Legally, therefore, the intramural researcher author cannot assign copyright to ASH or to the NIH. ASH would like to discuss this more thoroughly with NIH to resolve issues raised in these instructions following the Request for Information comment period.


File Link:  RFI_Comments_5-30-08.txt
Description:  ASH Response to NIH Public Access RFI 5-30-08

05/30/2008 at 02:41:48 PM Giesecke Joan Doctorate University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln Nebraska USA Other
Question 3:  Continuing updates on which journals will deposit in PubMEd for the author is greatly appreciated.

05/30/2008 at 02:34:05 PM Russell Ian BSc ALPSP BRISTOL North Somerset UK Publisher (including Commercial Organizations, Professional Societies and Journal Editors)
Question 3:  ALPSP fully supports the thorough list of concerns regarding the NIH public access policy and its implementation advanced by the Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers and the DC Principles Coalition. These questions were raised in a letter (see www.dcprinciples.org/Zehouni-4-16-08.pdf) to Dr E A Zerhouni on April 16, 2008 and are repeated below for your convenience.

Questions / comments raised by Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers and the DC Principles Coalition

1) Regarding Consultation with Publishers, Societies and Authors

• Many investigators are not aware of the new policy. Does NIH have a formal mechanism and the necessary resources to handle the questions that will arise from authors and journals? • What is NIH’s timeline for amending this policy moving forward? • What mechanism will NIH put in place to continue the dialogue with publishers that will help ensure this policy is “implemented and steered” effectively and that publisher concerns are addressed?

2) Regarding Copyright

• Why hasn’t the NIH supported the full value of copyright and its use in business models including those which involve driving traffic to a publisher site, and permit linking to publishers’ web sites, rather than requiring deposit at PubMed Central?

3) Regarding Brand Protection, Repurposing and Piracy

• What mechanisms will NIH put in place to ensure that any revisions to copyrighted materials such as reformatting, enhancing, linking or otherwise changing the articles respect the integrity of the copyrighted content it receives? What assurance will NIH give that this will be done in accordance with guidelines agreed to with publishers? • Will NIH identify precisely how manuscripts will be linked to databases and other resources, and which databases? Publisher concerns about links include: a) would links within the article obscure the information in the text? b) Would it change the editorial emphasis by seeming to suggest that certain information within the article is more important than other information, simply because there is a link? c) Would it be appropriate to change that emphasis in the context of the research and the article’s focus? • How will NIH ensure proper protection of publisher or society trademarks and branding? There been no affirmation of these markers of quality, and often branding information is missing, potentially misleading users to the erroneous conclusion that the NIH is claiming copyright, or that the content is in the public domain. • How will NIH respect the rights of copyright holders and stipulate what NIH will or will not allow related to third-party use of its works? Will NIH, for example, ensure that manuscripts are not distributed to other sites around the world besides PubMed Central? Will NIH implement guidelines that explicitly prohibit third parties from exploiting content that appears on PMC without the consent of the publisher? • How will NIH prevent piracy of the articles from PubMed Central? Will NIH prevent copyrighted material available on PMC from being altered, pirated, made into derivative works, redisplayed, republished, resold or used for any other commercial purpose? What will happen if piracy is discovered as a result of downloading of content from PubMed Central and will NIH notify publishers? • If deposited content will be “mirrored” to other sites outside the U.S., after publisher approval, how will the sites be established, and how would national and international copyright considerations protect rights holders? What guidelines will NIH agree to with publishers before any distribution of copyrighted content occurs on PMC international mirror sites?

4) Regarding Compensation

• What latitude will NIH have in negotiating terms and conditions directly with publishers and other rightsholders who might wish to undertake direct licensing arrangements with NIH that would enable the deposit of copyrighted works on behalf of authors? Given that NIH’s policy would amend many journal copyright policies and effectively reduce the value of those rights, will NIH be empowered to negotiate such licensing terms, including publication charges/payment, as certain non-government funding agencies have done? • The policy provides for publisher deposit of final peer-reviewed manuscripts on behalf of authors, and includes allowance for grantees to use grant funds in the payment of publication fees. How will such funds be identified in the grant and what has NIH budgeted per year for such costs over the next five years?

5) Regarding Scope

• If other public or private funders support research also supported by NIH, what will researchers be expected to do if these other sources oppose the posting of their funded work on PubMed Central? • Will NIH agree to stipulate that its requirement for the deposit of peer-reviewed manuscripts in PubMed Central only applies when NIH funding represents substantial funding for the research on which the scholarly work is based? • The policy also holds that “Principal investigators and their institutions are responsible for ensuring all terms and conditions of awards are met.” Yet, this includes the submission of articles that arise directly from the investigators’ NIH-funded research even if they did not author or co-author the publication. In fact, NIH-funded investigators and institutions are being held responsible for making sure these other authors are “aware of and comply with” the NIH policy. How could they comply with this provision? • What will the repercussions be for investigators and journals that do not follow the process? • NIH’s 2005 voluntary policy stated that it did “not apply to contributed book chapters, editorials, reviews, or conference proceedings.” Rather, it applied “only to peer-reviewed research publications.” Will NIH modify its guidelines to state that its deposit requirement only applies to peer-reviewed manuscripts that report findings of empirical research and does not apply to literature reviews?

6) Regarding Integrity of Research, Quality Control and Meaningful Public Access

• How will the NIH know the final month of publication when the month is not always established upon acceptance to a journal? • Many manuscripts currently appear on PMC in violation of publisher policies. How will NIH ensure under the new public access policy that individuals post the correct manuscript version to PMC to be publicly available at the correct time, consistent with publisher agreements? Will NIH ensure that embargo and posting policies are implemented on a journal-by-journal level or at least publisher-level? Will NIH provide a detailed description of the process at NIH to monitor and ensure prompt take-down of manuscripts improperly submitted? • For publishers submitting directly, how will NIH ensure that manuscripts will not be accepted from individuals or entities other than the publisher? • How will NIH ensure that researchers are not misled as to the accuracy and validity of manuscripts on PMC? Will there be pointers to final published versions on publisher sites? Will NIH develop, for example, a special section within PMC for members of the general public/patients to “land” on suitable information for patients and “disclaimers” that the PMC author manuscript represents only a small part of the literature, with references and links to voluntary health organizations (VHOs), Patient Inform, publisher sites? • How will NIH deal with plagiarism and ethics issues? Will NIH establish guidelines in consultation with publishers on how to deal with corrective notices, corrigendum, and retractions?

7) Regarding Cost

• NIH faces funding shortages from the federal government. How much will it cost to effectively implement this policy? • Does this cost detract from funds to grantees actually conducting the innovative research that advances science?

8) Regarding Measuring Impact and Effectiveness

• Will NIH provide publishers with detailed and robust PMC bibliographic usage statistics that will enable them to assess the impact of PMC usage on their subscriptions? • What oversight or governance will monitor whether NIH’s performance in pursuit of its intended purpose a) is met; b) is not costly for the taxpayer; c) is not burdensome on research investigators; or d) does not have a negative impact on the integrity of the scientific and medical literature (e.g. errors and versioning problems introduced, economic harm to journals and publishers)? • What steps will NIH take if it is found that its Public Access Policy is hurting rather than advancing scientific research?


File Link:  ALPSP_Response_to_NIH_RFI.txt
Description:  plain text version of response

05/30/2008 at 02:03:36 PM Dylla H. Frederick PhD American Institute of Physics College Park MD USA Publisher (including Commercial Organizations, Professional Societies and Journal Editors)
Question 3:  The previous voluntary policy (2005) failed, in part, because there was no significant collaboration between NIH and publishers of scientific journals, to either optimize the implementation of the policy or to examine the unintended consequences of the policy. To avoid a similar failed implementation this time, NIH should work collaboratively with the publishing community.

05/30/2008 at 01:19:29 PM Sinn Robin MS Sheridan Libraries; Johns Hopkins University Baltimore MD USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  A way to submit a test manuscript would be nice, so that librarians could demonstrate the full procedure to faculty needing assistance.

05/30/2008 at 01:13:35 PM Suber Peter Ph.D., J.D. Earlham College, Yale Law School Information Society Project, SPARC Brooksville Maine USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  The NIH already says in many places that deposit is required at the time an article is accepted for publication, not 12 months after publication. But many grantees, universities, and publishers are not getting the message. Can you make this explicit statement in even more places?

05/30/2008 at 12:24:58 PM Connolly Anne   Research Foundation of SUNY (RF) Albany NY USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  The Research Foundation of State University of New York (RF) suggests this recommendation for the NIH to consider for additional training and/or communications, from thoughts provided by some of the State University of New York (SUNY) campuses. 1. SUNY campuses recommend that the FDP (Federal Demonstration Partnership) subaward boilerplate should include the PubMed Central language as well as all subcontract agreements.

05/30/2008 at 12:03:02 PM Case Mary MALS University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago IL USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  The updated FAQ's and current information on the NIH Public Access site help us to keep researchers well informed. UIC has adopted a copyright addendum, developed a NIH Policy website, and targeted mailings to NIH researchers as well as to all faculty, in a joint effort by the Provost, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research, and the Library. Issues may arise in the next year as implementation progresses, and periodic requests for comment will allow a continuing dialog among all stakeholders.

05/30/2008 at 11:15:43 AM Joseph Heather MS The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition Washington DC USA Other
Question 3:  Additional comments on the policy and implementation are included the full SPARC comment submission attached to this form.


File Link:  SPARC_NIH-PA_RFI_FINAL_TXT.txt
Description:  SPARC Response to NOT-OD-08-060

05/30/2008 at 10:23:00 AM Crawford Brian Ph.D. American Chemical Society Washington DC USA Publisher (including Commercial Organizations, Professional Societies and Journal Editors)
Question 3:  The attached ACS comments broadly cover all four questions posed by NIH but by extension also cover many issues attendant to a larger more expanded response to each of the questions.


File Link:  ACS_RFI_Submission_053008.txt
Description:  ACS Response to NIH RFI on Implementation of the mandatory public access policy

05/30/2008 at 04:45:26 AM Herrmann Guido F. PhD, MBA Managing Director Thieme Chemistry, Thieme Publishers Stuttgart Germany Germany Publisher (including Commercial Organizations, Professional Societies and Journal Editors)
Question 3:  The Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers and the DC Principles Coalition have prepared and submitted a thorough list of the information and communications related to the NIH Public Access Policy that would be helpful to publishers. Thieme agrees that these questions should be fully and publicly addressed by NIH.

The information and communications requested are as follows:

1) Regarding Consultation with Publishers, Societies and Authors

•Many investigators are not aware of the new policy. Does NIH have a formal mechanism and the necessary resources to handle the questions that will arise from authors and journals? •What is NIH’s timeline for amending this policy moving forward? •What mechanism will NIH put in place to continue the dialogue with publishers that will help ensure this policy is “implemented and steered” effectively and that publisher concerns are addressed?

2) Regarding Copyright •Why hasn’t the NIH supported the full value of copyright and its use in business models including those which involve driving traffic to a publisher site, and permit linking to publishers’ web sites, rather than requiring deposit at PubMed Central?

3) Regarding Brand Protection, Repurposing and Piracy •What mechanisms will NIH put in place to ensure that any revisions to copyrighted materials such as reformatting, enhancing, linking or otherwise changing the articles respect the integrity of the copyrighted content it receives? What assurance will NIH give that this will be done in accordance with guidelines agreed to with publishers? •Will NIH identify precisely how manuscripts will be linked to databases and other resources, and which databases? Publisher concerns about links include: a) would links within the article obscure the information in the text? b) Would it change the editorial emphasis by seeming to suggest that certain information within the article is more important than other information, simply because there is a link? c) Would it be appropriate to change that emphasis in the context of the research and the article’s focus? •How will NIH ensure proper protection of publisher or society trademarks and branding? There been no affirmation of these markers of quality, and often branding information is missing, potentially misleading users to the erroneous conclusion that the NIH is claiming copyright, or that the content is in the public domain. •How will NIH respect the rights of copyright holders and stipulate what NIH will or will not allow related to third-party use of its works? Will NIH, for example, ensure that manuscripts are not distributed to other sites around the world besides PubMed Central? Will NIH implement guidelines that explicitly prohibit third parties from exploiting content that appears on PMC without the consent of the publisher? •How will NIH prevent piracy of the articles from PubMed Central? Will NIH prevent copyrighted material available on PMC from being altered, pirated, made into derivative works, redisplayed, republished, resold or used for any other commercial purpose? What will happen if piracy is discovered as a result of downloading of content from PubMed Central and will NIH notify publishers? •If deposited content will be “mirrored” to other sites outside the U.S., after publisher approval, how will the sites be established, and how would national and international copyright considerations protect rights holders? What guidelines will NIH agree to with publishers before any distribution of copyrighted content occurs on PMC international mirror sites?

4) Regarding Compensation •What latitude will NIH have in negotiating terms and conditions directly with publishers and other rightsholders who might wish to undertake direct licensing arrangements with NIH that would enable the deposit of copyrighted works on behalf of authors? Given that NIH’s policy would amend many journal copyright policies and effectively reduce the value of those rights, will NIH be empowered to negotiate such licensing terms, including publication charges/payment, as certain non-government funding agencies have done? •The policy provides for publisher deposit of final peer-reviewed manuscripts on behalf of authors, and includes allowance for grantees to use grant funds in the payment of publication fees. How will such funds be identified in the grant and what has NIH budgeted per year for such costs over the next five years?

5) Regarding Scope •If other public or private funders support research also supported by NIH, what will researchers be expected to do if these other sources oppose the posting of their funded work on PubMed Central? •Will NIH agree to stipulate that its requirement for the deposit of peer-reviewed manuscripts in PubMed Central only applies when NIH funding represents substantial funding for the research on which the scholarly work is based? •The policy also holds that “Principal investigators and their institutions are responsible for ensuring all terms and conditions of awards are met.” Yet, this includes the submission of articles that arise directly from the investigators’ NIH-funded research even if they did not author or co-author the publication. In fact, NIH-funded investigators and institutions are being held responsible for making sure these other authors are “aware of and comply with” the NIH policy. How could they comply with this provision? •What will the repercussions be for investigators and journals that do not follow the process? •NIH’s 2005 voluntary policy stated that it did “not apply to contributed book chapters, editorials, reviews, or conference proceedings.” Rather, it applied “only to peer-reviewed research publications.” Will NIH modify its guidelines to state that its deposit requirement only applies to peer-reviewed manuscripts that report findings of empirical research and does not apply to literature reviews?

6) Regarding Integrity of Research, Quality Control and Meaningful Public Access •How will the NIH know the final month of publication when the month is not always established upon acceptance to a journal? •Many manuscripts currently appear on PMC in violation of publisher policies. How will NIH ensure under the new public access policy that individuals post the correct manuscript version to PMC to be publicly available at the correct time, consistent with publisher agreements? Will NIH ensure that embargo and posting policies are implemented on a journal-by-journal level or at least publisher-level? Will NIH provide a detailed description of the process at NIH to monitor and ensure prompt take-down of manuscripts improperly submitted? •For publishers submitting directly, how will NIH ensure that manuscripts will not be accepted from individuals or entities other than the publisher? •How will NIH ensure that researchers are not misled as to the accuracy and validity of manuscripts on PMC? Will there be pointers to final published versions on publisher sites? Will NIH to develop, for example, a special section within PMC for members of general public/patients to “land” on suitable information for patients and “disclaimers” that the PMC author manuscript represents only a small part of the literature, with references and links to voluntary health organizations (VHOs), Patient Inform, publisher sites? •How will NIH deal with plagiarism and ethics issues? Will NIH establish guidelines in consultation with publishers on how to deal with corrective notices, corrigendum, and retractions?

7) Regarding Cost •NIH faces funding shortages from the federal government. How much will it cost to effectively implement this policy? •Does this cost detract from funds to grantees actually conducting the innovative research that advances science?

8) Regarding Measuring Impact and Effectiveness •Will NIH provide publishers with detailed and robust PMC bibliographic usage statistics that will enable them to assess the impact of PMC usage on their subscriptions? •What oversight or governance will monitor whether NIH’s performance in pursuit of its intended purpose a) is met; b) is not costly for the taxpayer; c) is not burdensome on research investigators; or d) does not have a negative impact on the integrity of the scientific and medical literature (e.g. errors and versioning problems introduced, economic harm to journals and publishers)? •What steps will NIH take if it is found that its Public Access Policy is hurting rather than advancing scientific research?

05/29/2008 at 10:34:08 PM Dobbs Aaron MSLS, MSM Shippensburg Univeristy of Pennsylvania Shippensburg PA USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  A published list of publishers whose author publishing agreements provide for deposit with PMC in a manner that is consistent with copyright law would help steer research to publications with compatible aims.

05/29/2008 at 06:54:21 PM Ogburn Joyce MSLS, MA University of Utah, University Librarian Salt Lake City UT USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  The University of Utah supports the public access policy and has commented before. We have committed fully to compliance and want to hear that the policy is in full implementation mode and achieving its goals. Keeping information and FAQs current will be helpful in answering our researchers’ questions. We would also appreciate information about how publishers, libraries or others are lending their support by providing deposit services or tools.

05/29/2008 at 06:29:12 PM Watson Linda MLS Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries Seattle WA USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  We urge NIH to continue its work to streamline the deposit process and the timely updating of its website along with announcements of the updates.

05/29/2008 at 05:24:56 PM Ruff Christopher Ph.D. Editor, American Journal of Physical Anthropology Baltimore MD USA Publisher (including Commercial Organizations, Professional Societies and Journal Editors)
Question 3:  Clarification regarding the applicability of the mandate to researchers with partial support from NIH is needed. For example, is the mandate intended to apply to any research carried out with NIH support, regardless of how small that portion was, or to new studies that make use of data originally collected with NIH support? What if other funding agencies involved in support of the research have alternative policies regarding public deposition of papers?

05/29/2008 at 05:04:56 PM Lougee Wendy MA, MLS University of Minnesota Libraries Minneapolis MN USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:   We encourage the NIH to continue to update the Public Access website, and provide as much detail as possible in the FAQs. We rely on this information to inform our authors of new developments or clarifications. NIH should consider an RSS feed on the appropriate pages so that we can be alerted to updates.

NIH could clarify in the FAQs that authors need not pay OA fees to publishers to comply with the NIH mandate.

05/29/2008 at 04:49:01 PM Smith Kevin J.D. Duke University Durham NC USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  Two specific steps that NIH could take would help to facilitate communication and make compliance with the public access policy smoother and more efficient. First, it would be best to send the final PMC version of an article for verification before it is uploaded to the database to BOTH the principle investigator and the lead author listed on the article. This would help PIs remain aware of work being done, especially on widely diffuse research projects, and it would reduce the bottleneck of articles that are pending PMC availability because a PI fails to complete this final step; lead authors, when different from the PI, will have a much greater incentive to complete this verification. Second, it would be tremendously helpful to institutional monitoring efforts, and beneficial to the smooth implementation of the policy, if notification could be sent to the designated institutional research office if, after a designated period of time, there had been no response to a request for verification of a final article text for PMC. Grantee institutions have a significant stake in compliance, and notice of this impediment is important if the research support offices are to be of material assistance in overseeing compliance.

05/29/2008 at 04:31:54 PM Anderson Norman Ph.D. CEO, American Psychological Association Washington DC USA Publisher (including Commercial Organizations, Professional Societies and Journal Editors)
Question 3:  Although the various PowerPoint training materials posted on NIH’s Public Access Communications and Training Web site are helpful in explaining the public access policy and its overall implementation with respect to authors and institutions, there needs to be more attention directed to publishers. The general message is clear, “authors of articles arising from NIH funds are responsible for ensuring that publishing agreements allow for full compliance with the policy.” However, guidance such as that provided in the January 2008 NIH Extramural Nexus article entitled, “What the new public access requirement means to the NIH-supported investigator” can be seen as undermining the role of many publishers by posing the following questions:

"Does your institution wish to develop or amend a standard copyright transfer agreement for all institutional authors?"

"Does your institution wish to designate an individual or department to help investigators submit their own manuscripts?"

In addition to this one Web site and the explanatory page linked from the citation sites, it would be helpful to have some guidance on the actual pages that provide links to the peer-reviewed manuscripts and final published journal articles to help inform both the scientific community and the lay public about the difference between the two and how the latter can be obtained from the publishers.

Furthermore, NIH’s instructions to authors about the PMC manuscript deposit process should include language directing authors, when preparing their grant proposals, to check on the deposit fees and charges required by the journal(s) to which they intend to submit their work for publication. NIH also needs to change the wording of its FAQ about publication costs to clarify that publication fees, page charges, and NIH deposit fees are authorized for payment with NIH grant funds.

05/29/2008 at 03:46:52 PM Michalak Sarah MLS University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill NC USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  Consider developing routine communication process with campus offices of research to collaborate on ensuring compliance

05/29/2008 at 03:46:16 PM Michalak Sarah MLS University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill NC USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  Consider developing routine communication process with campus offices of research to collaborate on ensuring compliance

05/29/2008 at 03:42:57 PM Goetsch Lori MLS Kansas State University Manhattan Kansas USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  Clarify to the research community that this policy does not jeopardize copyright. Also, dispel concerns that open access, and this policy in particular, harms the bottom line for journal publishers. Speaking as a member of the library community, it is both unrealistic and not in anyone's best interest to seriously think that massive journal cancellations would ensue as a result of this policy. Embargo periods provide sufficient safeguards to the revenue streams of publishers, and our goal as librarians is to get the relevant research our faculty need and demand out to them in a timely manner through continued subscriptions.

05/29/2008 at 01:25:46 PM Newman Kathleen PhD University of Illinois Library Urbana IL USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  We have set up a support site for our local researchers, http://uiuc.libguides.com/NIH. The most difficult part of submitting papers is making sure that one has retained the right to do so. So that's what we focused on (Step 1). You might beef up your support of this endeavor, e.g., by pointing to the Sherpa Romeo db.

05/29/2008 at 12:53:47 PM Butter Karen ML University of California, San Francisco San Francisco CA USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  Guidance for how to address the following scenario would be appreciated: o How should authors deal with “one-click” copyright transfer agreements, through which they have no opportunity to negotiate for the authority to deposit their manuscripts to PubMed Central?

We commend NIH for the materials currently available on the NIH website– they have been helpful in our outreach efforts to authors and in work with the research office and for rapid response to questions about the policy. Below is a summary of activities to date at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and those planned for the near future: o Development of a prominent page about the NIH Public Access Policy on the Library’s web site: http://library.ucsf.edu/research/scholcomm/nih.html; o Targeted outreach to faculty, in coordination with the UCSF Office of Research; o In-service trainings for Library staff members to become familiar with the basics of the policy. These trainings rely upon the “Public Access Training” presentation developed by NIH; o Collaboration on educational and advocacy activities across the ten 10 University of California campuses; o External trainings for UCSF faculty and staff about the policy; and, o Establishment of an email address that UCSF researchers or administrative assistants can use to submit questions about the policy

05/29/2008 at 12:51:22 PM Courtois Martin Master of Arts Library Science Kansas State University Manhattan KS USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  The information available is helpful, even tho it is a lot to digest.

05/29/2008 at 12:19:39 PM Cameron-Vedros Crystal MLS Univesity of Kansas Medical Center Kansas City KS USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  Researchers would like the NIH feedback forms requesting the PI approve submitted manuscripts to be cc'd to all authors and other submitters who are listed in the submission process. Researchers realize that PI's and authors come from all numerous institutions and having all parties automatically copied to all email correspondence to and from the NIH submission process would help keep all parties involved and informed of status.

05/29/2008 at 12:12:03 PM Mower Allyson MA University of Utah Salt Lake City UT USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  N/A

05/29/2008 at 10:15:27 AM Green David MA, DPhil Global Journals Publishing Director, Taylor & Francis, Informa plc Milton Park Abingdon UK Publisher (including Commercial Organizations, Professional Societies and Journal Editors)
Question 3:  • Regarding Copyright: We strongly urge NIH to consider public access requirements fulfilled when publishers make articles substantially funded by NIH grants available without charge immediately on publication on the publishers’ own open Web sites.

• Regarding Patent Rights: Has NIH fully considered the public-access requirements’ impact on patent rights? Articles may be jointly authored by NIH-supported and privately supported researchers – indeed, some industry researchers also receive NIH grants. Posting of accepted manuscripts to PubMedCentral may well be considered publication, imposing time limits on commercial collaborators’ ability to file patents on their inventions. Unless authors are fully aware of these implications, public-access posting could jeopardize researchers’ ability to patent and commercialize their inventions. These requirements could, moreover, jeopardize NIH-funded researchers’ access to non-NIH-funded collaborations. This would be have a negative impact on innovation and commercially exploitable scientific knowledge.

The Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers and the DC Principles Coalition have prepared and submitted a thorough list of the information and communications related to the NIH Public Access Policy that would be helpful to publishers. We agree that these questions should be fully and publicly addressed by NIH.

Informa supports the Association of American Publishers’ request for information and communications, which are as follows:

1) Regarding Consultation with Publishers, Societies and Authors

• Many investigators are not aware of the new policy. Does NIH have a formal mechanism and the necessary resources to handle the questions that will arise from authors and journals? • What is NIH’s timeline for amending this policy moving forward? • What mechanism will NIH put in place to continue the dialogue with publishers that will help ensure this policy is “implemented and steered” effectively and that publisher concerns are addressed?

2) Regarding Copyright

• Why hasn’t the NIH supported the full value of copyright and its use in business models including those which involve driving traffic to a publisher site, and permit linking to publishers’ web sites, rather than requiring deposit at PubMed Central?

3) Regarding Brand Protection, Repurposing and Piracy

• What mechanisms will NIH put in place to ensure that any revisions to copyrighted materials such as reformatting, enhancing, linking or otherwise changing the articles respect the integrity of the copyrighted content it receives? What assurance will NIH give that this will be done in accordance with guidelines agreed to with publishers? • Will NIH identify precisely how manuscripts will be linked to databases and other resources, and which databases? Publisher concerns about links include: a) would links within the article obscure the information in the text? b) Would it change the editorial emphasis by seeming to suggest that certain information within the article is more important than other information, simply because there is a link? c) Would it be appropriate to change that emphasis in the context of the research and the article’s focus? • How will NIH ensure proper protection of publisher or society trademarks and branding? There been no affirmation of these markers of quality, and often branding information is missing, potentially misleading users to the erroneous conclusion that the NIH is claiming copyright, or that the content is in the public domain. • How will NIH respect the rights of copyright holders and stipulate what NIH will or will not allow related to third-party use of its works? Will NIH, for example, ensure that manuscripts are not distributed to other sites around the world besides PubMed Central? Will NIH implement guidelines that explicitly prohibit third parties from exploiting content that appears on PMC without the consent of the publisher? • How will NIH prevent piracy of the articles from PubMed Central? Will NIH prevent copyrighted material available on PMC from being altered, pirated, made into derivative works, redisplayed, republished, resold or used for any other commercial purpose? What will happen if piracy is discovered as a result of downloading of content from PubMed Central and will NIH notify publishers? • If deposited content will be “mirrored” to other sites outside the U.S., after publisher approval, how will the sites be established, and how would national and international copyright considerations protect rights holders? What guidelines will NIH agree to with publishers before any distribution of copyrighted content occurs on PMC international mirror sites?

4) Regarding Compensation

• What latitude will NIH have in negotiating terms and conditions directly with publishers and other rightsholders who might wish to undertake direct licensing arrangements with NIH that would enable the deposit of copyrighted works on behalf of authors? Given that NIH’s policy would amend many journal copyright policies and effectively reduce the value of those rights, will NIH be empowered to negotiate such licensing terms, including publication charges/payment, as certain non-government funding agencies have done? • The policy provides for publisher deposit of final peer-reviewed manuscripts on behalf of authors, and includes allowance for grantees to use grant funds in the payment of publication fees. How will such funds be identified in the grant and what has NIH budgeted per year for such costs over the next five years?

5) Regarding Scope

• If other public or private funders support research also supported by NIH, what will researchers be expected to do if these other sources oppose the posting of their funded work on PubMed Central? • Will NIH agree to stipulate that its requirement for the deposit of peer-reviewed manuscripts in PubMed Central only applies when NIH funding represents substantial funding for the research on which the scholarly work is based? • The policy also holds that “Principal investigators and their institutions are responsible for ensuring all terms and conditions of awards are met.” Yet, this includes the submission of articles that arise directly from the investigators’ NIH-funded research even if they did not author or co-author the publication. In fact, NIH-funded investigators and institutions are being held responsible for making sure these other authors are “aware of and comply with” the NIH policy. How could they comply with this provision? • What will the repercussions be for investigators and journals that do not follow the process? • NIH’s 2005 voluntary policy stated that it did “not apply to contributed book chapters, editorials, reviews, or conference proceedings.” Rather, it applied “only to peer-reviewed research publications.” Will NIH modify its guidelines to state that its deposit requirement only applies to peer-reviewed manuscripts that report findings of empirical research and does not apply to literature reviews?

6) Regarding Integrity of Research, Quality Control and Meaningful Public Access

• How will the NIH know the final month of publication when the month is not always established upon acceptance to a journal? • Many manuscripts currently appear on PMC in violation of publisher policies. How will NIH ensure under the new public access policy that individuals post the correct manuscript version to PMC to be publicly available at the correct time, consistent with publisher agreements? Will NIH ensure that embargo and posting policies are implemented on a journal-by-journal level or at least publisher-level? Will NIH provide a detailed description of the process at NIH to monitor and ensure prompt take-down of manuscripts improperly submitted? • For publishers submitting directly, how will NIH ensure that manuscripts will not be accepted from individuals or entities other than the publisher? • How will NIH ensure that researchers are not misled as to the accuracy and validity of manuscripts on PMC? Will there be pointers to final published versions on publisher sites? Will NIH to develop, for example, a special section within PMC for members of general public/patients to “land” on suitable information for patients and “disclaimers” that the PMC author manuscript represents only a small part of the literature, with references and links to voluntary health organizations (VHOs), Patient Inform, publisher sites? • How will NIH deal with plagiarism and ethics issues? Will NIH establish guidelines in consultation with publishers on how to deal with corrective notices, corrigendum, and retractions?

7) Regarding Cost

• NIH faces funding shortages from the federal government. How much will it cost to effectively implement this policy? • Does this cost detract from funds to grantees actually conducting the innovative research that advances science?

8) Regarding Measuring Impact and Effectiveness

• Will NIH provide publishers with detailed and robust PMC bibliographic usage statistics that will enable them to assess the impact of PMC usage on their subscriptions? • What oversight or governance will monitor whether NIH’s performance in pursuit of its intended purpose a) is met; b) is not costly for the taxpayer; c) is not burdensome on research investigators; or d) does not have a negative impact on the integrity of the scientific and medical literature (e.g. errors and versioning problems introduced, economic harm to journals and publishers)? • What steps will NIH take if it is found that its Public Access Policy is hurting rather than advancing scientific research?

05/28/2008 at 05:48:50 PM Reichel Mary Ph.D Appalachian State University Boone NC USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  As health science issues grow increasingly important to North Carolina. My university is developing a health sciences college and new degrees and programs to satisfy the need for health care professionals and top-tier research. Any ongoing communication about the NIH Public Access Policy would not only help ensure our compliance as potential grantees, but help us communicate the value of PubMed as a repository for peer-reviewed, taxpayer-funded research. Though North Carolina is well-known for its excellent support of education and research, our faculty throughout the state system need access to more information in order to speed the process of healthcare discovery and cures.

05/28/2008 at 04:00:29 PM Galea Sandro MD, DrPH University of Michigan Ann Arbor MI USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  The information that is available for this has been filtered through many different Universities, often couched in legal language that is not terribly useful for day-to-day purposes. For example, our institution recommends ensuring that the publisher accepts the NIH open policy. This, once again, shifts the onus to the investigator and clears all large bodies (NIH, publishers, universities) of potential liability. Clear, unequivocal guidelines (step-by-step) about what investigators should do, and clear explication that doing so does not put the investigators in jeopardy from either NIH or publishers would go a long way to clearing the confusion around this new policy and to ensure compliance.

05/28/2008 at 02:29:45 PM DeCrappeo Anthony   Council on Governmental Relations Washington DC USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  Our concern remains grounded in the nature of the institution’s relationship – or lack thereof – to the process of publication. Normally, institutions do not join in the relationship between authors and journals. However, as the grantee, a research institution is obligated to meet the terms and conditions of all its agreements. As such, institutions must act to ensure compliance with this NIH requirement. We will remind our investigators to maintain their rights individually to provide a copy of the final peer-reviewed manuscript that has been accepted for publication to PubMed Central (PMC) under current copyright law provisions. We will provide them with proposed language to insert in copyright agreements to enable posting to PMC. With respect to our subrecipients, we will include the requirements of the Public Access policy in our subagreements.

05/28/2008 at 01:44:27 PM Case Kathleen MS American Association for Cancer Research Philadelphia PA USA Publisher (including Commercial Organizations, Professional Societies and Journal Editors)
Question 3:  If the articles on PMC are to be a public service, then there needs to be instruction to the public on how to interpret an animal study, a study with an insufficient number of subjects, a report of an experimental new drug that has not been proven in a trial, a phase 1 study versus a phase 3 study, etc. Also, there needs to be a VERY CLEAR warning that the articles in PMC are not final articles and do not represent all of the literature on a topic. For the public or anyone, a fragment of the literature could be a dangerous thing, and an unedited article could also be dangerous. There are few if any warnings on PMC now.

05/28/2008 at 01:40:09 PM Oliver Kathleen MSLS, MPH Johns Hopkins University Libraries Council Baltimore MD USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  NIH could publish recommendations for authors on reserving rights with publishers who use on-line one click contracts.

05/28/2008 at 01:32:07 PM ness roberta MD, MPH University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh PA USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  Many journals are now assessing large surcharges (in the thousands of dollars per publication) to assure compliance with the policy. Most investigators do not know that these surcharges are not mandatory. Specifically, investigators do not know that they can upload final accepted drafts, and not only the final publication directly. To the extent that many researchers believe they must pay these fees, this will have a chilling impact on students, trainees, and investigators in developing countries, as well as on any investigator that is not well funded. It is imperative that NIH clearly and concisely warn all NIH-funded investigators that they need not pay these fees and how to avoid doing so.

Imbedding this information on page 5 of a website is not adequate. A brief, clear warning should be sent to all funded investigators regarding this situation.

05/28/2008 at 12:38:31 PM Mullaly-Quijas Peggy PhD University of Missouri - Kansas City Kansas City MO USA Other
Question 3:  An up-to-date list of publishers that will submit manuscripts to NIH on the behalf of PIs

05/28/2008 at 11:50:38 AM Goodell Heather MIS American Heart Association Dallas TX USA Publisher (including Commercial Organizations, Professional Societies and Journal Editors)
Question 3:  Please see our letter

05/27/2008 at 07:43:51 PM Lee Daniel M.A., M.L.S. University of Arizona Tucson Arizona USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  Besides the link to a list of journals that will submit manuscripts for authors, it would be helpful to have access from the policy site to easily understood information about publishers’ policies that comply with the new policy. Other than that, a simple submission process will reduce the need for training.

05/27/2008 at 04:00:09 PM Baker Nancy MLS, MA University of Iowa Iowa City Iowa USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  Since many libraries link their information websites on this policy directly to NIH, it will be important to NIH to keep their electronic information on any changing procedures up-to-date.

05/27/2008 at 01:42:55 PM St. Clair Gloriana Ph.D. Carnegie Mellon University Libraries Pittsburgh PA USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  The NIH Public Access Policy is profoundly important. Public access to the results of NIH-funded research will accelerate scientific discovery and give the American public vital information. The pattern that the NIH has established for gathering input from stakeholders and addressing their concerns is to be praised.

The policy has just been implemented. Experience will indicate where clarification or modification is needed. For example, initial public comments revealed inconsistencies in the language used on the NIH website to describe procedures. These inconsistencies were a source of confusion. We are pleased that NIH responded promptly and made the language consistent. Over time, as researchers and their assistants work with the procedural information and tools provided by the NIH, other problems might surface that need to be addressed. Periodic requests for public comment will ensure that the dialog with stakeholders and the fine tuning of tools, training and documentation continue.


File Link:  NIH_RFI_May2008_948.txt
05/27/2008 at 01:15:09 PM Soules Aline MA, MSLS, MFA California State University, East Bay Hayward CA USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  It would be very helpful if this site could incorporate an RSS feed or an automatic email notification when new information is added to the page.

05/27/2008 at 11:58:14 AM Durniak Anthony BEE and MS IEEE Piscataway NJ USA Publisher (including Commercial Organizations, Professional Societies and Journal Editors)
Question 3:  The posted information is fairly massive, and it is not easy to find answers to the questions that might occur to an author or grantee. One question that comes to mind is: Does NIH have a procedure in place to notify all those responsible that the required submission has been successfully completed?

05/27/2008 at 09:02:42 AM Eaton Nancy MLS Penn State University University Park PA USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  We find the updated FAQ’s very helpful. Providing current information on the NIH Public Access site contributes to our ability to keep our faculty and researches informed.

05/26/2008 at 02:39:35 PM Steele Patricia   Indiana University Libraries Bloomington IN USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  I have sufficient information.

05/23/2008 at 03:36:05 PM Brash Douglas PhD Yale School of Medicine New Haven Connecticut USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  The posting itself is a minor nuisance. But including PMC ID numbers in bibliographies is a real problem, especially if we need them for all published papers (not just our own). This is because companies such as EndNote and RefManager (and they are nearly all owned by Thompson now) do not correctly retrieve or cite PMC ID numbers. It would be very helpful if NIH or HHS leaned on Thompson to fix this problem and distribute an "NIH Style" file.

05/23/2008 at 02:43:02 PM Andreadis Debra   Denison University Granville OH USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  I think you have done a good job with the information on this website. I currently do not have any further suggestions in that area.

05/22/2008 at 02:15:09 PM Roberts Richard Ph.D. New England Biolabs Ipswich MA USA Other
Question 3:  Some stronger words about how best to convince our Universities and employers to deal with the publishers over copyright to the publishers. All they need is a license to publish.

05/22/2008 at 01:31:10 PM Canizares Claude Ph.D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Cambridge MA USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  

05/22/2008 at 10:07:06 AM Van Kampen Doris Ed.D Saint Leo University New Port Richey FL USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  Continued publication and educational forums at conferences on the policy.

05/21/2008 at 05:43:29 PM Tagler John Masters of Library & Information Science Association of American Publishers, Professional & Scholarly Publishing Division New York NY USA Publisher (including Commercial Organizations, Professional Societies and Journal Editors)
Question 3:  What will NIH do in cases of noncompliance with its policy guidelines? What action will be taken when a grantee’s article is published, but NIH is not provided with the peer-reviewed manuscript? What actions will be taken against noncompliant grantees when they apply for future NIH grants?

05/19/2008 at 12:33:39 PM Reiter Allan PhD US DoD, Defense Threat Reduction Agency Ft. Belvoir VA USA Other
Question 3:  None at this time, but I have found fedbizops (grants.gov) has a good notifier system for keeping my abreast of BAA's/RFI's, etc. from sister agencies.

05/18/2008 at 06:12:43 PM Fister Barbara MLIS, MA Gustavus Adolphus College St. Peter MN USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  I think what you've made available already is quite helpful.

05/16/2008 at 02:50:17 PM Lewis Margaret   University of Illinois Champaign Ill. USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:   More information directed to the general public. This is an issue everyone should be interested in.

05/13/2008 at 09:00:24 AM Miller Jonathan MLS Rollins College Winter Park Florida USA Other
Question 3:  None, i think you have done a fine job so far. Keep it up!

05/12/2008 at 10:50:53 AM Van Orsdel Lee MLS Grand Valley State University Grand Rapids MI USA Other
Question 3:  Health-related research is exploding in western Michigan,with a new medical school, several new hospitals, and expanding health-related research institutions expanding or building new facilities. My university is the major regional hub for educating students for health related fields--nursing, physical therapy, physician's assistants, occupational therapy, lab techs, etc. We are well-funded but can't begin to purchase all of the relevant journals to those fields. Information fuels education and invention. The more freely it is shared, the faster society feels the benefit. Subscriptions put barriers between practitioners and the information they need to treat patients. Their patients have already paid taxes to generate this information--having timely access to it may save their life or that of a child or parent. It is unconscionable not to make the information free and open to everyone who can benefit from it.

05/08/2008 at 04:21:49 PM Newman Katie Ph D University of Illinois Urbana IL USA Representative NIH Funding Recipient Organization
Question 3:  I think it would be helpful if the NIH site provided more information for scholars on how they can assure themselves that they have the RIGHT to put their manuscripts in PMC. For so long they have been blithely signing the publishers copyright agreement forms -- frequently giving away ALL their rights, that I feel this is an area with great opportunity for education. In ALA jargon, this would be "Author Rights" education.

I appreciate the verbiage that NIH has provided. But they could also point folks to the Sherpa/Romeo site <http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php>, where authors can see if their publisher, de facto, is "NIH compliant".

05/02/2008 at 05:53:11 PM Boothby Mark M.D., Ph.D. Vanderbilt University Nashville TN USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  1. Honest Information on

a. how much the chosen mechanism will cost to implement (as opposed to incorporation of alternative approaches), including not just the servers and the I.T. support but also the direct and indirect costs charged in the cases where desirable journals (e.g., those that impress grant reviewers) start charging several thousand $$$ for the alternative of having author own copyright – see testimony already logged in response to this RFI) AND a reasonable estimate of the increases in page charges that publishers inevitably will start charging to defray the shift in revenue away from subscriptions – extra page charges that will be shouldered by NIH funds and subtract from the real goals, which are getting and disseminating new data and insights, followed by flow of those insights into better health.

b. how many aggregate NIH $$$ will be spent to cover the direct and indirect cost component of having this dumped on investigators and covered as a direct cost to the grant (as opposed inclusion of an automated system at NIH that is based on PI’s submitting PMID and an NLM computer program pulling the open access text in instances where it was already available, and simply requiring that the PMID be submitted between time of publication and 12 mo thereafter) (number of papers per year x $75 / hr (a low-end estimate of direct + indirect cost of PI time) x at least 60 min / paper -- US government estimates of how little time things take are always ludicrously on low side because of legal mandate that policies be cost-effective; uploading takes longer than 15 min, and then there’s the follow-up emails, the inevitable screw-ups of conversions, etc) [10,000 papers per year would mean at least 2 R01’s gone, which these days means 2 scientists gone; probably 4 gone is more realistic as, after queries and re-edits, this may take 2 hr per paper on average]

c. how many R01’s of average size will not be funded per year because of this form of implementation and construction of PMC (after y’all presumably asked Congress specifically to name PMC as the mechanism for achieving the goal of allowing public to view the fruits of research they funded)?

2. Send an email to all NIH grantees with each of the information links embedded in text, and with each of the instruction presentations attached (slide show on public access policy, 15 slides; NIHMS System Slide Show).

05/01/2008 at 10:59:25 AM Sweet Douglas PhD VCU Richmond VA USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  When I sign onto PubMed all of my articles appear and have a PMID# - is this compliance?

I can not find out what a "PMCID" number [NIH info] is versus the "PMID" I see associated with my articles in PubMed - is there a difference?

04/30/2008 at 03:49:03 PM Lackner andrew DVM, PhD Tulane University Covington LA USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  If NIH is not going to address this with the directly with the journals then they should provide additional funding to the institutions of all NIH Funded grantees to hire the legal staff to deal with the problem.

04/30/2008 at 02:59:24 PM MacLennan John PhD University of Cincinnati Cincinnati OH USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  An NIH office should do the screening and posting themselves instead of NIH paying PI time to very inefficiently do it. In terms of research bang for the NIH buck the current system does not seem the best.

04/28/2008 at 11:52:47 PM Cutter Gary PhD University of Alabama Birmingham AL USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  If NIH is unwilling to strongly negotiate with journals on behalf of the scientific community, it should provide a cadre of legal staff to review each and every nuance a journal could provide in order to capitalize on the intellectual property it now takes to publish in their journal.

04/28/2008 at 04:41:40 PM Taylor Russell PhD Johns Hopkins University Baltimore Md USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  Much greater clarification of what is covered and how to go about it.

Some description of what efforts NIH staff are taking to ease implementation of this policy. E.g., see answer to question #2. You might say whom you are approaching and give a contact email address for investigators to query status or suggest additional journals or societies to contact.

04/28/2008 at 03:55:37 PM Emery David PhD University of Washington Seattle WA USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  The issue is not one of training, but one of unfunded mandates. The NIH should take the responsibility of implementing the public access policy, not individual investigators.

04/28/2008 at 03:19:38 PM Brash Douglas PhD Yale School of Medicine New Haven CT USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  no

04/28/2008 at 02:46:45 PM Sattler Alison   University of Washington School of Medicine Seattle WA USA Other
Question 3:  I support several faculty members who need to add PMCID numbers to PUBLISHED works for their progress reports that are due in June. I know how to enter manuscripts into the PubMedCentral database, but not published works. Currently, no information exists for how to add published articles and the journals these were published in aren't included in your list of journals that automatically submit artiles to you upon acceptance.

What do you recommend? How can we comply with the law for adding the PMCID # to articles in grants that were published after April if we don't have a PMCID for the article and can't add it to the system to get a number?

04/24/2008 at 07:45:43 PM Thiagarajan Balasubramanian Ph.D Annamalai University Annamalainagar Tamil Nadu India Other
Question 3:  Nothing more

04/11/2008 at 01:12:27 PM Kurtz Mark AB, MTS, MA BioOne Washington DC USA Publisher (including Commercial Organizations, Professional Societies and Journal Editors)
Question 3:  BioOne (www.bioone.org) has recently released a model publication agreement that addresses current trends in copyright assignment and requirements by NIH and other funding agencies for digital repository deposits. While the Agreement was developed at the request of several BioOne publishers, it may be of interest to any scholarly publishing organization that is seeking a clear, concise, and legally vetted publication agreement.

In March 2007, the legal firm Morrison & Foerster LLC (www.mofo.com) generously agreed to provide pro bono legal assistance to BioOne in drafting a Model Publication Agreement. Ms. Pamela Pasti, Of Counsel in the Technology Transactions Group of Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office, was assigned to the project. Over the course of the following year, Ms. Pasti worked with BioOne to review existing publication agreements, notable author’s addenda, and articles describing emerging trends in copyright law as it relates to academic publishing.

The resulting agreement allows author(s) to retain copyright, while granting the publisher both a temporally limited and exclusive right to first publish, and a perpetual, non-exclusive right to publish, distribute, and sublicense. In response to NIH’s Public Access Policy (passed by Congress in December 2007) and other institutional and subject repository deposit mandates, the Agreement allows authors to deposit their work in digital repositories directly, or permits the publisher to deposit to the National Library of Medicine on their behalf.

The BioOne Model Author Agreement reflects over a year of work for all involved in this important project. From the onset, we felt strongly that BioOne was in a unique position as a collaborative publishing endeavor to draft an equitable agreement, which would not have been possible without the legal guidance of Morrison & Foerster, and the invaluable feedback garnered from the publisher and library community.

The final Agreement is freely available on the BioOne website at www.bioone.org. An accompanying “roadmap” is also available to provide publishers adopting the Agreement with guidance on specific author and publisher rights and amendable sections.


File Link:  BioOne_Model_Publication_Agreement_FINAL_-_27_March_08.txt
04/09/2008 at 09:25:24 PM Kobertz William Ph. D. UMASS Medical School Worcester MA USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  The term electronic version is very vague. Do you mean the final pdf version that the journal publishes. Alternatively, you could imagine submitting the word document and figures as a pdf that is not formatted by the journal. This version would probably not be covered under the copywrite laws, but then again as a PI, I really have no idea. I think clear, concise language needs to be used to inform the PI's of how to deal with publications that are not open access.

04/09/2008 at 01:44:35 PM Cohen Zohara PhD National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering / NIH Bethesda MD USA Other
Question 3:  I understand that the current policy does not cover non-peer-reviewed conference papers. The policy is not clear regarding peer-reviewed conference papers. Please make sure this is clear in the final version.

04/04/2008 at 03:36:56 PM Resnick Rachelq MS Abramson Ctr. for Jewish Life/Polisher Research Inst. North Wales PA USA Other
Question 3:  How long does it take between the time the manuscript and related files are uploaded, and the PI is asked to approve the final version?

Is the version of record going to be the PMCID HTML file, the PMCID PDF version, or the publisher's version? Will having three versions out there affect the way authors cite the resources within their papers?

If, after an article is published on PMC or in a journal, a mistake is found, how are corrections (or retractions) handled?

04/04/2008 at 11:25:28 AM sanders pat ged na bennington nh USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  depression

04/04/2008 at 11:25:23 AM sanders pat ged na bennington nh USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  depression

04/04/2008 at 10:25:41 AM Buchwald Stephen Ph.D. MIT Department of Chemistry Cambridge MA United States NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  Having an automated way to do this would be helpful. Going about it in a piecemeal way invites chaos. Also, I can imagine trying to submit a proposal without the required information. There needs to be some way to handle cases where computer or other issues come up unexpectedly.

04/04/2008 at 05:27:23 AM Salamon Peter PhD San Diego State University San Diego CA USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  Don't know.

04/03/2008 at 02:32:40 PM Watson Cheryl PhD University of Texas Medical Branch Galveston TX USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  I would like it to be such a simple system that no one requires any training. Just make the information available as soon as it is published.

04/02/2008 at 01:59:18 PM Labuhn Denis MD Einstein NY NY USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  The idea is simply. If the US government through NIH pays for it then it belongs to them and not the PI or the University so who needs to worry what they think. All that matters is what NIH thinks.

04/01/2008 at 12:53:03 AM Ammann Arthur MD Univeristy of California San Rafael CA USA Patient or Representative of a Public Health Advocacy Organization
Question 3:  see above

04/01/2008 at 06:14:25 PM Snider Marc BS Computer Science citizen Merrimack NH USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  Nothing really. The public access mechanism provided by pubmed is truly one of the shining lights of the federal government (which too often otherwise does not act in the real public interest).

Ensuring timely and unfettered public access to research data supported by public funds is an extremely valuable and laudable pursuit.

04/01/2008 at 03:42:50 PM Cook Andrew PhD Physics Eugene OR USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  Information regarding the NIH's communication with the NSF on this policy.

04/01/2008 at 02:44:18 PM Ritchie Thomas B.S. of Biology Rutgers University New Brunswick NJ USA Other
Question 3:  The use of podcasts to go along with powerpoint presentations provides for much better context-specific interpretation of the slides offered. The USPTO provides audio lectures to go along with downloadable slideshows to educate patent practitioners about new USPTO policies and it has been both popular and successful.

04/01/2008 at 02:39:15 PM Rubin Ethel PhD BioFortis Columbia MD USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  Communicating the policy to patient advocacy groups is very important. Patients have been frustrated for years to have liimited access to journal articles or paying for access to the data they seek.

04/01/2008 at 01:50:27 PM Foster Ryan PhD Candidate University of Florida College of Medicine Gainesville FL USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  Nothing useful to add.

04/01/2008 at 12:46:10 PM Dante Doug Bachelors Personal Detroit MI USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  All NIH funded grants subject to the public access requirement should be available to the public on a web site with information at the time that the grant is made. All grants not subject to that requirement should also be listed and a reason why they can't be given to the public should be included. (e.g. National Security)

04/01/2008 at 12:18:33 PM Romans Ehs PhD UT Arlen TX USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  NOW YOU LISTEN TO ME. PUBLIC TAX PAYER MONEY MEANS YOU NEED TO KEEP THE SYSTEM ___OPEN___

04/01/2008 at 09:28:28 AM Milgram Eric Ph.D. Individual Wake Forest NC USA Other Member of the Public
Question 3:  At this point, I do not understand how violations of the policy will be handled. Specifically, I read that violations will not affect funding outcomes, and will be dealt with "administratively." I would like to see more detail here. The penalties for not complying should be clearly stated, and should also be of such a nature to serve as a strong deterrent for not complying with the policy.

03/31/2008 at 06:09:49 PM Gudas Lorraine PhD Weill Cornell Medical College New York New York USA NIH-funded Investigator
Question 3:  I have no idea.

Total Comments = 96

Return to Public Access Home Page