Hardin Scholarly Communication News

A Newsletter for the Health Sciences Campus at the University of Iowa.
June 10, 2005
Issue 5.05

WELCOME to this irregularly issued electronic newsletter. Its purpose is to bring to readers’ attention a variety of topics that affect the current system of scholarly communication, with emphasis on new developments, open access and alternative publishing models in the health sciences. This newsletter aims to reflect the interests of its readers so please forward comments, suggestions and entries to include to (karen-fischer@uiowa.edu).

SPARC Executive Directorship Changes Leadership
NIH Public Access Policy Notice and Manuscript Submission FAQs Posted
A New Era: Questions Loom as NIH Public Access Plan Goes Into Effect
With NIH Policy, So Far Not So Good?
OUP Announces Open Access Initiative
University of Iowa Scientists Publish Articles in PLoS Biology
NIH’s PubChem Database is Threatened by ACS Claim
PubChem Debate Heads to the Hill
Cornell Faculty Senate Endorses Resolution on Open Access and Scholarly Communication
Wall Street Journal Article Sums Up Battle Between Open Access and For-Profit Publishers
Wellcome Trust Boosts NIH Plan
Elsevier: LISU Study on Princing “Misleading”
Bowker: US Book Publishing Output Hits Record High
More Completed Backfiles in PubMed
Free Electronic Journals

Rick Johnson, the founding executive director of SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition), has announced his resignation. Johnson, the only executive director in SPARC’s history, will be replaced effective July 1 by Heather Joseph, currently president and COO of BioOne. Johnson said he planned to take some time "to catch my breath," consult, travel and spend more time with his family. Under Johnson’s leadership, SPARC swelled into an international organization, including SPARC Europe in the UK; in April, Johnson traveled to Japan to strengthen ties there. While SPARC was founded in 1998, developed by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), in 2002 it committed itself as a chief proponent of open access, a decision that both inspired activism among librarians and packed forums at library meetings, most recently as a booster of the NIH’s public access plan. ARL executive director Duane Webster praised Johnson’s efforts for "making libraries an important force in the process of transforming scholarly communication."
[Library Journal Academic Newswire (TM), April 26, 2005]

A notice on implementation of the NIH Public Access Policy has been posted. NIH Guide: "Implementation of Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research" (NOT-OD-05-045).
<http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-045.html>.

The notice summarizes the previously announced policy, introduces the NIH Manuscript Submission (NIHMS) system, and briefly describes how to submit a manuscript. An FAQ  on NIHMS is available at <http://nihms.nih.gov/faq.html>.

Here are a few highlights of the notice:

* "NIH expects that only in limited cases will authors deem it necessary to select the longest delay period" (i.e., 12 months).

* The secure submission system "allows easy identification of NIH grant numbers (past and present)."

* "Manuscript files from extramural PIs may be submitted by the PI only. Beginning July 6, 2005, manuscript files may be submitted to the NIHMS system by either the extramural PI or a third party on the PI’s behalf (e.g., administrative personnel, graduate students, librarians, publishers, etc.)."

* "…procedures for batch processing of multiple submissions [e.g., by publishers or libraries, I presume] are being explored and may be developed in the future."

* For submission, NIH extramural investigators must use their "eRA Commons" account. "NIH eRA Commons is a system developed to facilitate the discrete exchange of essential information between NIH and applicant organizations. The ‘Commons’ is a Web interface, available at <https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/>, where NIH and the grantee community are able to conduct their extramural research administration business electronically."

* NIH "maintains a help desk to assist users with manuscript submissions and answers to any questions related to the submission process. Contact <http://web.nihms.nih.gov/db/sub.cgi?page=email&from=home> the help desk with your queries."
[email from Rick Johnson, Executive Director of SPARC, to SPARC Members, April 30, 2005]

After months of often heated discussion, the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) public access policy went into effect May 2nd. Under the plan, NIH grantees are "strongly encouraged"–though not required–to deposit their final papers into the NIH’s PubMed Central digital archive. The NIH has posted a page on its web site detailing how the submission process will be handled. NIH has set up a secure, password-protected submission system. As of now, only primary investigators can use the system. As of July 6, it will accommodate third party submissions, so administrative personnel, graduate students, librarians, and publishers can submit on behalf of the researcher. In addition, "procedures for batch processing" of multiple submissions, for example by publishers or libraries, are "being explored and may be developed in the future." SPARC director Rick Johnson urged libraries that support NIH-funded research to "review the NIH’s notice, FAQ, and related documentation and to encourage submission of manuscripts." The NIH notice is available at:
<http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-045.html>

Until policy became active, proponents of the NIH policy heralded its adoption as an important governmental precedent. Now, it will have to be seen how the policy works in practice–and the policy has its skeptics. Among publishers, there is widespread concern that an Advisory Working Group involving publishers and other stakeholders, the formation of which NIH executive director Elias Zerhouni publicly endorsed, has not been formed. A letter from American Institute of Physics’ (AIP) Marc Brodsky, on behalf of AAP, complained that the NIH’s explanatory materials "leave a substantial number of ambiguities and unanswered questions," including how corrections or revisions will be handled. Brodsky urged the implementation date be pushed back until an Advisory Working Group could be put in place–but to no avail. In an editorial in the NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, Robert Steinbrook called the NIH policy a "new era," both lauding the NIH’s commitment to archiving and access and citing numerous concerns with the policy. Steinbrook said the policy may "confuse investigators," as well as "continue to rile some journal editors and publishers." Although NIH has stressed that the policy is a request, Steinbrook also questioned the policy’s effect on researchers "caught between their support for the public health mission of the NIH and their own self-interest." Time will tell. "It should rapidly become obvious," Steinbrook writes, "whether the policy is working as the NIH and Congress intended." To read Steinbrook’s editorial, visit: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/17/1739
[Library Journal Academic Newswire (TM), May 3, 2005]

In its statement coinciding with last week’s rollout of the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) public access plan, the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) and the Alliance for Taxpayer Access (ATA) reiterated that the policy was a “positive step” but also voiced concern that the policy’s voluntary nature and discretionary timeframe may hinder the progress NIH director Elias Zerhouni anticipated. In announcing the policy, Zerhouni said he expected that few publishers would choose to keep their work embargoed for the longest period suggested–12 months. However, several journal publishers, including Nature and most recently Oxford University Press, have announced policy changes that require long embargoes.

“It’s disappointing to see journals announce their policies for NIH-funded authors,” said Peter Suber, who writes the SPARC Open Access Newsletter. “In each such case so far, journals are resisting the NIH request for public access ‘as soon as possible’ after publication and demanding embargoes of six or 12 months. This will slow down medical research and violate the NIH’s own criteria for the policy.” Rick Johnson, the soon-to-be-departing executive director of SPARC and a founder of the ATA, said SPARC will demand change if the current trend continues. “If participation is weak or access is delayed too long, as will soon be evident, NIH must act to strengthen the policy and achieve its goals.”
[Library Journal Academic Newswire (TM), May 10, 2005]

Oxford Journals, a division of Oxford University Press (OUP), which has experimented with a range of open access initiatives, announced that beginning in July, it will follow commercial competitors Springer and Blackwell’s by offering an optional "author-pays model" for some journal titles. "Oxford Open" gives authors the choice to make their articles freely available online immediately upon publication for a fee of $2,800. A discounted author charge of $1,500, however, will be available to authors from institutions that maintain a current online subscription to the journal. Martin Richardson, managing director of Oxford Journals, said the program would help OUP collect data on the demand for open access by authors across a broad range of subjects. "It offers research funders a choice as to how quickly they wish the research results they fund to be made freely available online, without undermining the current business models," he said.

In addition, OUP also announced that it was amending its policy on self-archiving to be consistent with the recently implemented National Institutes of Health (NIH) policy. Previously, OUP allowed the archiving of pre-prints, but not post-prints–a "Yellow" publisher under the Romeo color code. Under OUP’s new policy, authors can archive their post-prints in repositories, including the NIH’s PubMed Central–but "must stipulate that public availability be delayed until
12 months after first online publication in the journal unless the paper is being published within Oxford Open." That policy will disappoint boosters of the open access policy. NIH director Elias Zerhouni has said he expected that few would choose to withhold access for the longest possible term–12 months. That, however, is exactly what OUP has announced. Further details about Oxford’s policy can be found at www.oupjournals.org/selfarchivingpolicy. For more on Oxford Open, see www.oupjournals.org/oxfordopen.
[Library Journal Academic Newswire (TM), The Publishing Report, May 5, 2005]

The Public Library of Science (PLoS) is a nonprofit organization committed to making the world’s scientific and medical literature freely available online, without restrictions on use or further distribution, free from private or government control. 

Early Myocardial Function Affects Endocardial Cushion Development in Zebrafish

Thomas Bartman, Emily C. Walsh, Kuo-Kuang Wen (Assistant Research Scientist, Dept. of Biochemistry), Melissa McKane (Research Asst III , Dept. of Biochemistry), Jihui Ren (Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Physiology), Jonathan Alexander, Peter A. Rubenstein (Professor, Dept. of Biochemistry), Didier Y. R. Stainier

PLoS Biology Vol. 2, No. 5, e129

Full-text | Print PDF (3645K) | Screen PDF (418K)

The Neural Substrates of Infant Sleep in Rats
Karl Karlsson (Researcher, Dept. of Psychology), Andrew J. Gall (Graduate Teaching Assistant, Dept. of Psychology), Ethan J. Mohns (Graduate Teaching Assistant, Dept. of Psychology), Adele M. H. Seelke (Graduate Teaching Assistant, Dept. of Psychology), Mark S. Blumberg (Professor, Dept. of Psychology)

PLoS Biology Vol. 3, No. 5, e143
Full-text | Print PDF (5328K) | Screen PDF (414K)

“The Neural Substrates of Infant Sleep in Rats” received national coverage!
National Geographic on April 19, 2005
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0419_050419_sleep.html

Washington Post on May 9, 2005:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/08/AR2005050800789.html

A Letter distributed by SPARC (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition):

The American Chemical Society (ACS) is calling on Congress to unreasonably restrict PubChem, a freely accessible database that connects chemical information with facts in numerous public databases. It is a critical component of NIH’s Molecular Libraries Initiative, which in turn is a key element of the NIH strategic "roadmap" to speed new medical treatments and improve healthcare.

ACS claims that PubChem competes with its Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS). In reality, PubChem and the Chemical Abstracts Service databases are complementary, not duplicative. If ACS succeeds in eliminating PubChem, scientific progress will be throttled. The University of California Office of Scholarly Communication has created a page laying out the facts of this issue (http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/acs_pubchem.html). This page collects the position statements, the major documents, and a list of actions that can support PubChem. Among these documents is an open letter in support of PubChem from Peter Murray-Rust of the Cambridge University (UK) Chemistry Department and Henry Rzepa, Professor of Chemistry at the UK’s Imperial College. The letter states in part that “In our laboratories we are using PubChem for systematic research and are enhancing its value by publishing the results to the world….By sharing resources freely we detect and correct errors, and encourage innovation in the way we access information. Many developments in bioscience and healthcare come not from the wet laboratory, but through computational knowledge-driven methods. PubChem represents the start of such a process in chemical bioscience.” (The letter is available in full at https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1961.html).

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has also spoken out in support of PubChem. In a letter to Rep. Ralph Regula, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Related Agencies, the AAMC urged Congress to continue support for this vital resource.

The American Chemical Society’s (ACS) campaign to at least limit the scope of the National Institutes of Health’s PubChem database could wind up in Congress shortly, via the FY 2006 appropriations bill (see LJ Academic Newswire 5/19/05). The bill is now under consideration by the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies. Rep. Ralph Regula (D-OH), chair of the subcommittee, is reportedly considering adding language to the bill that would address ACS’s concerns. Meanwhile, the ACS has stepped up its public relations campaign, asserting in an open statement that in PubChem the NIH has "created a mini-replica of the CAS [Chemical Abstracts Service] Registry." ACS officials state that NIH has duplicated both the "platform and content" of the CAS Registry, owned by ACS. "If a scientist obtains this data from PubChem, there is no reason to purchase it from the CAS Registry," ACS said. "We therefore believe that statements that PubChem is complementary to the CAS Registry rather than competitive are wrong." ACS wants PubChem to include only the research funded by NIH.

At present, PubChem contains less than one million compounds, compared to 25 million in the CAS Registry. Library groups meanwhile, are supporting PubChem, this week releasing a letter written to Regula that disputes ACS’ claims. The letter, sent by SPARC, was also signed by the American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries, Association of College & Research Libraries, Association of Research Libraries and the Medical Library Association. PubChem, the groups said, "is a powerful tool" that enables medical researchers to harness NIH-funded and other public resources about chemical structures. "We reject the ACS contention that PubChem will compete with the giant CAS. Not only is it implausible that NIH’s modestly funded program would be a substitute for the wide range of resources integrated by CAS, there appears to be remarkably little overlap in either content or likely users of PubChem and CAS."
[Library Journal Academic Newswire (TM), The Publishing Report, June 02, 2005]

(Ithaca, NY, May 17, 2005) The Cornell University Faculty Senate endorsed a resolution concerning scholarly publishing at its meeting on May 11, 2005.  

The resolution, introduced by the University Faculty Library Board, responds to the increasingly excessive prices of some scholarly publications and encourages the open access publication of scholarship.

Sarah E. Thomas, Carl A. Kroch University Librarian, thanked the University Faculty Library Board for their energetic engagement on behalf of increasing dissemination of scholarship through open access.  "Cornell faculty have been leaders in speaking out on behalf of reasonably priced scholarly journals, and their efforts have had a world-wide impact," she said.

The resolution urges tenured faculty to cease supporting publishers who engage in exorbitant pricing, by not submitting papers to, or refereeing for, the journals sold by those publishers, and by resigning from their editorial boards if more reasonable pricing policies are not forthcoming.

Examples of Cornell faculty and librarians who have already taken action include:  

Eberhard Bodenschatz, professor of physics, who became the editor in chief of the New Journal of Physics, a successful open access journal.  The journal is financed by author charges, is free for all readers through the world-wide web, and  provides a less-expensive, high quality  scholarly alternative.

W. Brutsaert, W.L. Lewis professor of civil and environmental engineering, publishes his work in society journals.  He notes most commercial journals do not levy page charges and states "this is a seductive tactic for academic authors, who are invariably strapped for research funds.  But it is definitely a poisoned gift.  The pricing structure of many commercial journals has gotten so totally out of hand that many libraries can no longer afford to subscribe to them.  As a result, authors who continue to give preference to commercial over society journals will go increasingly unread by their colleagues."

Karen Calhoun, Associate University Librarian for Technical Services, recently resigned as assistant editor for the journal Library Collections, Acquisitions and Technical Services because of publisher Elsevier’s pricing policies; she also chose to seek publication of a scholarly article in a different journal.

The resolution is available via Cornell University Library’s scholarly communication web site: http://www.library.cornell.edu/scholarlycomm/resolution.html