A New Era: Questions Loom as NIH Public Access Plan Goes Into Effect
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]
