Bookmark and Share

'Open access' opening wider

More research institutes require free access, but bill requiring it at NIH faces presidential veto


[Published 5th July 2007 11:22 AM GMT]


As a growing number of research institutes and professional societies move to embrace open or free public access publishing, legislation is pending in Congress that would mandate scientists funded by the National Institutes of Health to post their final peer-reviewed manuscripts online within 12 months after journal publication.

But don't expect the door to unencumbered access be thrown wide open anytime soon: a number of professional research societies still oppose various aspects of open access, and the mandatory NIH directive is in danger of being scuttled because it is included in NIH's Fiscal 2008 budget bill, which President Bush has pledged to veto if it exceeds predefined spending limits.

Nevertheless, the trend is growing. On June 26 the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) announced that starting next year it will require its scientists to deposit copies of journal articles in NIH's PubMed Central free database within six months of publication. "We have sought to balance the goal of public access with the important principle of scholarly freedom in the formulation of this policy," said HHMI President Thomas R. Cech in a statement. HHMI follows other major funding institutions, including the Wellcome Trust, in mandating open access.

Last week (July 1), the American Physiological Society (APS) announced a new open access publishing option that allows authors for its 13 journals to post studies online immediately after being accepted for publication. Under the new program, called Author Choice, researchers pay a $2,000 processing fee in addition to routine page charges for their studies to be made available immediately.

In addition to serving its own journal authors, Author Choice "is designed to meet the needs of agencies, such as HHMI and Wellcome Trust, which really want [their studies published] sooner than 12 months," said Martin Frank, APS executive director and coordinator of the DC Principles Coalition, a group of more than 100 scholarly and not-for-profit journal publishers that supports wide dissemination of research findings.

"While NIH was the start of this effort, I believe Wellcome Trust and HHMI are playing a role to serve as a vanguard for NIH and its ultimate goal, which, I think, is to make [research studies] all free," Frank told The Scientist. "An open access mandate for NIH is long overdue," said Peter Suber, director of the Open Access Project at Public Knowledge, a public-interest advocacy group. "It will help the agency and taxpayers and researchers and health care in the United States," he told The Scientist.

Since May 2005, NIH policy requests scientists to submit their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts with PubMed Central "as soon as possible" after acceptance for publication but not later than 12 months. But with compliance averaging less than 5%, NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni conceded the voluntary approach wasn't working. "A mandatory policy seems to be the one that will be necessary," Zerhouni told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee in March. He asked lawmakers to make public access within 12 months a condition of NIH grant funding, which they have done.

The Senate Appropriations Committee passed the Fiscal 2008 NIH funding bill with the mandatory language in June, and the House Appropriations Committee is expected to take up the measure next week. But with a veto threat looming, the outcome is far from clear. John Burklow, NIH spokesman, declined a request from The Scientist to comment on the legislation.

Do you agree with policies that mandate open access? Tell us here.


Ted Agres
mail@the-scientist.com

Links within this article

T. Agres, "Publishers, societies oppose 'public access' bill," The Scientist, May 11, 2006.
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23426

Senate Labor/HHS/Education Fiscal 2008 appropriations bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:S.1710:

T. Agres, "US Congress drafts funding boost," The Scientist, June 18, 2007.
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/53288

Howard Hughes Medical Institute
http://www.hhmi.org

PubMed Central
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov

"HHMI Announces New Policy for Publication of Research Articles," June 26, 2007
http://www.hhmi.org/news/20070626.html

Wellcome Trust position statement, March 14, 2007:
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD002766.html

American Physiological Society
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD002766.html

"American Physiological Society (APS) Announces New Program to Make Research Results Immediately Available to the Public," July 1, 2007
http://www.the-aps.org/press/journal/07/39.htm

DC Principles Coalition
http://www.dcprinciples.org/index.htm

Public Knowledge's Open Access Project
http://www.publicknowledge.org/about/what/projects/open-access.html

T. Agres, "NIH announces 'open access' rules," The Scientist, Feb. 4, 2005. http://www.thescientist.com/article/display/22590


Advertisement

 

Rate this article

Rating: 2.00/5 (6 votes )





Access to scientific journals, a luxury
by Ver￳nica Ponce M.D., Ph.D.

[Comment posted 2007-07-10 09:35:25]
For a scientists working in a non developed country were resources are scarce, access to journals and articles become a luxury and shouldn't be so, it makes professional activity harder, is a very serious issue, and is not fair.
Medical problems are so many, so complex and so much suffering involved, it makes no sense to me this "pay or else" attitude from publishers and all those responsible for this policy.
Open Acces is certainly a hope and has change for good the way science goes for me and many others!




Open Access
by Stephanie

[Comment posted 2007-07-09 08:44:50]
As a college student majoring in Biology, I have research classes that require subject articles within 2 years. As the knowledge-base for subjects widens, the ability to find articles in a particular niche are not as easily found without open access. It also is much harder for economically-challenged students to get articles if one has to pay for every single "possible lead". If the articles have already been published for 1 year, is there really any harm in allowing it to be placed in PubMed Central? From experience I have found that the "average person on campus" does not search for these types of articles, only us science students, and of course, other scientists.



A Tiered System of Open Access
by Bill Crane

[Comment posted 2007-07-06 14:56:44]
Perhaps a tiered system is best to reasonably protect the investment of private funders, while ensuring reasonable public access. Following peer review, research funded entirely by public funds should be made available (open access) without charge within 3 months. Mixed funded research should reflect an appropriate balance of public and private propriety. All should be made available with 18 to 24 months. Transferring "ownership" of the research doesn't provide a solution to the open access issue - it seems like another example of changing deck chairs on the Titanic - it makes the problem just look different.



Mandating open access is the only way
by Danny Kingsley

[Comment posted 2007-07-05 22:08:46]
As a PhD student looking into the uptake of open access, I have come to the conclusion that ultimately open access is not an individual reponsibility. It is the reponsibility of the institution, the funder, the publisher. It is up to these organisations to determine actually HOW to acheive open access. If it is the institution it may be by mandate - but the instutution needs to provide the means for this to occur. Currently the systems in place for increasing awareness of open access could be described as osmotic at best. Come on, institutions! Get behind the open access movement and actually turn the good intentions, positive statements and fist waving into action! (That means putting in some resources by the way, not dumping more things onto overworked academics).



Open Access
by F Coles, Ph.D

[Comment posted 2007-07-05 20:15:16]
If the U.S. Taxpayer paid for the research then it is owned by U.S. Citizens and should be available free of charge to U.S. Citizens. However, not available to non-U.S. citizens for free.



Public Use: "Royalty-free' Copyright, and Patents?
by S.A. Clark

[Comment posted 2007-07-05 18:18:16]
I favor public access of scientific reports, I think it facilitates scientific interchange and progress.

If the public pays for the research (in taxes), why should the outcome belong to a new entity (journals) that then obligates the public to pay to read reports of its funded research?

Of course one could also argue that intellectual property does not follow that model. Legally, universities and academic-based scientists already 'own' the intellectual property that they decide to pursue to patent protection. In this manner, the public pays for research that is then licensed to enable a private company to make products and profits, and those profits are shared with universities and select staff in royalties. Those royalties could be compared to access fees that journals charge.

Given that public-funded research that is turned into a patent does not allow royalty-free use, then I can understand how some might argue that public-funded scientific research that is turned into a scientific publication should not allow no-fee/royalty-free use.



Public Access to Journal Articles
by Larry Woods

[Comment posted 2007-07-05 15:23:16]
It seems to me that there has got to be a way to work this out. If the people pay for the work, they own it and have already paid for access.

In private business, whoever pays for the work gets to decide what to do with it, not the person who generates it, or a third party who simply puts it on paper.

What exactly is "claim" that professional societies or private publishers have on that data, if they don't pay for the work?



Open access policy too lenient
by David Ozonoff, MD

[Comment posted 2007-07-05 15:09:01]
I agree with the principle but 12 months is too long. I would ask for a maximum of 3 months and require certification at grant renewal that the policy has been adhered to.



The News


Front Cover

Register for FREE Online Access

  • »Current issue
  • »Best Places to Work and Salary surveys
  • »Daily news and monthly contents emails

Register »

Subscribe to the Magazine

  • »Monthly print issues
  • »Unlimited online access
  • »Special offers on books, apparel, and more

Subscribe »

Library Subscriptions
Recommend to a Librarian

Masthead | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy
© 1986-2012 The Scientist