Hardin Scholarly Communication News

Hardin Scholarly Communication News - November 2007

November 16th, 2007 by Karen Fischer

A Newsletter for the Health Sciences Campus at the University of Iowa

November 2007 | Issue 4.07

Hardin Scholarly Communication News brings together 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. Subscribers will also receive our newsletter Hardin News.

Table of Contents:

U of Iowa Faculty Senate Approves Author’s Addendum for Publishing Agreements
So Close, Yet Still so Far? Bill Containing NIH Public Access Provision Is Vetoed
NLM Releases New Reference Publication
HHMI Deal with Springer
Max Planck Society Cancels Licensing Agreement with Springer
Drug Industry Said to Exert Vast Power Over Research by Ghost-Managing Articles
Clinical Drug Trial Data - LA Times article
Elsevier Launches a Medical Wiki
Decision to Disclose Information Can Enter Gray Area
First PLoS Hub on Clinical Trials
ACS editor makes the case for ACS Author Choice program
Retaining Copyrights to Increase Research Impact: Online Tutorial

U of Iowa Faculty Senate Approves Author’s Addendum for Publishing Agreements

November 16th, 2007 by Karen Fischer

The University of Iowa Faculty Senate Approved the “Addendum to Publication Agreements for CIC Authors” at their October 23, 2007 meeting. This addendum is intended for authors to use to help them protect their intellectual property rights when publishing their work.

Excerpt from the “Statement on Publishing Agreements”:

Faculty authors should consider a number of factors when choosing and interacting with publishers for their works. The goal of publication should be to encourage widespread dissemination and impact; the means for accomplishing this will necessarily depend on the nature of the work in question, the author’s circumstances, available suitable outlets, and expectations in the author’s field of inquiry. In general, authors are encouraged to consider publishing strategies that will optimize short- and long-term access to their work, taking into account such factors as affordability, efficient means for distribution, a secure third-party archiving strategy, and flexible management of rights.

To read more of the statement and view the addendum, visit the full Statement and Addendum.

So Close, Yet Still so Far? Bill Containing NIH Public Access Provision Is Vetoed

November 16th, 2007 by Karen Fischer

President Bush this week vetoed the recently passed Labor, Health and Human Services (LSSA) domestic spending bill. It contained a mandatory public access policy for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). While an override vote has yet to be scheduled, the bill passed in both chambers just shy of the two-thirds majorities needed, making an override highly unlikely.

The veto means publishers opposed to the public access policy are likely to get one more shot to try to remove or amend the policy during negotiations. Although the bill was vetoed for its overall spending, the White House’s “Statement of Administration Policy” (SAP) memo “noted” that any NIH policy “should balance the benefit of public access to taxpayer supported research against the possible impact that grant conditions could have on scientific research publishing, scientific peer review and on the United States’ longstanding leadership in upholding strong standards of protection for intellectual property.” That mention suggests those opposed to the policy could have another, albeit remote, opportunity to revise or slash the policy. Supporters say that heavy bipartisan support for the policy suggest it will survive intact, though advocates for the policy are urging supporters to contact their representatives.

The NIH public access policy, strongly supported by libraries for years, would require researchers to deposit their final articles in the NIH’s PubMed Central database to be made freely available within a year as a condition of grant funding.

Library Journal Academic Newswire, Nov. 15, 2007

Related article:
Bush Vetos Bill that Contains NIH Open Access Mandate - but there is hope it will eventually pass!

President Bush has vetoed the FY 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill, which contained the NIH open access mandate.

Here’s the open access mandate in the bill:

The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.

However, there is still hope for the Bill to pass. Read Peter Suber’s analysis of the President’s veto:

* First, don’t panic. This has been expected for months and the fight is not over. Here’s a reminder from my November newsletter: “There are two reasons not to despair if President Bush vetoes the LHHS appropriations bill later this month. If Congress overrides the veto, then the OA mandate language will become law. Just like that. If Congress fails to override the veto, and modifies the LHHS appropriation instead, then the OA mandate is likely to survive intact.” (See the rest of the newsletter for details on both possibilities.)
* Also expected: Bush vetoed the bill for spending more than he wants to spend, not for its OA provision.
* Second, it’s time for US citizens to contact their Congressional delegations again. This time around, contact your Representative in the House as well as your two Senators. The message is: vote yes on an override of the President’s veto of the LHHS appropriations bill. (Note that the LHHS appropriations bill contains much more than the provision mandating OA at the NIH.)
* The override votes—one in each chamber—haven’t yet been scheduled. They may come this week or they may be delayed until after Thanksgiving. But they will come and it’s not too early to contact your Congressional delegation. For the contact info for your representatives (phone, email, fax, local offices), see CongressMerge.
* Please spread the word!

From:DigitalKoans, Nov. 13, 2007

News Release from October 24th, when the US Senate Approved the Bill

Full U.S. Senate Approves Bill Containing Support for Access To Taxpayer-Funded Research

Washington, D.C. – October 24, 2007 - The U.S. Senate last night approved the FY2008 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Bill (S.1710), including a provision that directs the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to strengthen its Public Access Policy by requiring rather than requesting participation by researchers. The bill will now be reconciled with the House Appropriations Bill, which contains a similar provision, in another step toward support for public access to publicly funded research becoming United States law.

“Last night’s Senate action is a milestone victory for public access to taxpayer-funded research,” said Heather Joseph, Executive Director of SPARC (the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, a founding member of the ATA). “This policy sets the stage for researchers, patients, and the general public to benefit in new and important ways from our collective investment in the critical biomedical research conducted by the NIH.”

Under a mandatory policy, NIH-funded researchers will be required to deposit copies of eligible manuscripts into the National Library of Medicine’s online database, PubMed Central. Articles will be made publicly available no later than 12 months after publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

The current NIH Public Access Policy, first implemented in 2005, is a voluntary measure and has resulted in a deposit rate of less than 5% by individual investigators. The advance to a mandatory policy is the result of more than two years of monitoring and evaluation by the NIH, Congress, and the community.

“We thank our Senators for taking action on this important issue,” said Pat Furlong, Founding President and CEO of Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy. “This level of access to NIH-funded research will impact the disease process in novel ways, improving the ability of scientists to advance therapies and enabling patients and their advocates to participate more effectively. The advance is timely, much-needed, and – we anticipate – an indication of increasingly enhanced access in future.”

“American businesses will benefit tremendously from improved access to NIH research,” said William Kovacs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. “The Chamber encourages the free and timely dissemination of scientific knowledge produced by the NIH as it will improve both the public and industry’s ability to become better informed on developments that impact them – and on opportunities for innovation.” The Chamber is the world’s largest business federation, representing more than three million businesses of every size, sector, and region.

“We welcome the NIH policy being made mandatory and thank Congress for backing this important step,” said Gary Ward, Treasurer of the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB). “Free and timely public access to scientific literature is necessary to ensure that new discoveries are made as quickly as feasible. It’s the right thing to do, given that taxpayers fund this research.” The ASCB represents 11,000 members and publishes the highly ranked peer-reviewed journal, Molecular Biology of the Cell.

Joseph added, “On behalf of the taxpayers, patients, researchers, students, libraries, universities, and businesses that pressed this bill forward with their support over the past two years, the ATA thanks Congress for throwing its weight behind the success of taxpayer access to taxpayer-funded research.”

Negotiators from the House and Senate are expected to meet to reconcile their respective bills this fall. The final, consolidated bill will have to pass the House and the Senate before being delivered to the President at the end of the year.

http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/media/release07-1024.html

###

The Alliance for Taxpayer Access is a coalition of patient, academic, research, and publishing organizations that supports open public access to the results of federally funded research. The Alliance was formed in 2004 to urge that peer-reviewed articles stemming from taxpayer-funded research become fully accessible and available online at no extra cost to the American public. Details on the ATA may be found at http://www.taxpayeraccess.org.

NLM Releases New Reference Publication

November 16th, 2007 by Karen Fischer

Citing Medicine, the style guide from the US National Library of Medicine, now has instructions on how to cite a blog.

HHMI Deal with Springer

November 16th, 2007 by Karen Fischer

HHMI Expresses Support for Springer Open Choice, a press release from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, September 27, 2007.

Excerpt:

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) has expressed support for Springer’s Open Choice program whereby articles are — if accepted for publication after a process of rigorous peer-review — immediately published with full open access and deposited in repositories such as PubMed Central, at a flat-rate fee per article of $3,000. Springer’s Open Choice programme applies to all its journals.

HHMI has a strong commitment to ensuring public access to original research articles. Beginning with papers submitted for publication after January 1, 2008, HHMI will require its scientists to publish their original research articles in journals that allow the articles and supplementary materials to be made freely accessible in a public repository within six months of publication.

HHMI is the largest private funder of biomedical research in the U.S. and commits more than $500 million a year for research and distributes $80 million in grant support for science education.

HHMI investigators already publish a significant number of research articles in open access journals or in journals with open access options. Under the new policy, HHMI will pay up to $2,000 in open access charges per article with the balance coming from laboratory budgets or other sources….

In Springer Open Choice, authors are not required to transfer their copyright to Springer; instead, these articles are published under a Creative Commons License….

Open Access News, Sep 27, 2007

Max Planck Society Cancels Licensing Agreement with Springer

November 16th, 2007 by Karen Fischer

Press Release, October 18, 2007

Following difficult negotiations, the Max Planck Society has cancelled the licensing agreement it has had for many years with Springer Verlag.

The cancellation will take effect as of December 31, 2007. Negotiations failed because no agreement could be reached regarding an adequate ratio between price and long-term services. “Springer held to excessive demands right up until the end of the negotiations; that’s why the MPS has cancelled the agreement,” according to MPS Vice President Kurt Mehlhorn. An evaluation of usage statistics and comparisons with other important publishers made it clear Springer was demanding approximately double the price for the offered journals than the Max Planck Society regards as reasonable.

The current agreement allowed all Max Planck Institutes access to around 1,200 electronic scholarly journals published by Springer Verlag. The failure of the negotiations means Springer’s SpringerLink research interface can no longer be provided centrally for the Society’s Institutes. The Max Planck Society and the Max Planck Digital Library will develop strategies together with the Institute libraries most affected to secure the supply of essential contents on a cost-effective basis.

The failure of negotiations with Springer represents a watershed in the Society’s relationship with various globally-active scientific publishing houses. Extreme price developments in the supply of information, as well as usage restrictions, are prompting scientific organizations around the world to rethink their policies. From as early as 2003, the Max Planck Society initiated the “Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities”, which is intended to promote greater open publication opportunities for publicly financed research.

Springer Verlag’s insistence on maintaining its negotiating position confirmed to the more than 240 scientific organizations around the world that have so far signed the “Berlin Declaration” how important their project is. What is certain is that very few publishing houses can afford to undermine the public’s interest in the broadest possible access to knowledge through excessive price structures. If publishers have the market power to effectively implement such prices and if legislators are unwilling to subject such inappropriate behavior to legal controls, the only way left open to science will be to take matters into their own hands.

Contact:

Dr. Ralf Schimmer
Max Planck Digital Library, Munich
Tel.: +49 89 38 602-255
Fax: +49 89 38 602-290
E-mail: schimmer@mpdl.mpg.de

[The Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science, operates 80 research institutes with more than 12,000 staff members and 9,000 Ph.D. students, post-docs, guest scientists and researchers, and student assistants. Read more about the organization at: http://www.mpg.de/english/aboutTheSociety/aboutUs/index.html]

Drug Industry Said to Exert Vast Power Over Research by Ghost-Managing Articles

November 16th, 2007 by Karen Fischer

Drug companies play a far bigger role than previously suspected in managing how academics publish articles in medical journals, charges Sergio Sismondo, an associate professor of philosophy and sociology at Queen’s University in Canada. In an essay this week in PLoS Medicine, published by the Public Library of Science, Mr. Sismondo says that “a substantial percentage of medical-journal articles (in addition to meeting presentations and other forms of publication …) are ghost-managed, allowing the pharmaceutical industry considerable influence on medical research.”

Mr. Sismondo bases his case on an examination of internal company documents revealed in a lawsuit and also on his research into so-called medical education and communication companies. Those businesses help pharmaceutical companies promote their products by preparing academic articles and then recruiting university scientists to put their names on the manuscripts, says Mr. Sismondo. “Ghost management of medical-journal publications is clearly a substantial business, employing thousands of marketers, writers, and managers,” he says.

It will take teamwork from journal editors, academic administrators, and scientists to solve the problem, he says. Editors could refuse to deal with third-party publication planners and insist that the listed authors specify the exact roles they played in preparing articles. Universities should not sign contracts that give the sponsors of research projects the authority to write or edit articles. And administrators should punish scientists who sign their names to articles written by others. Investigators, he says, should refuse to participate in projects where a company secretly writes the academic paper.

Scientists, he says, must be “more modest about how many articles they can publish, and more realistic about the amount of effort, legwork, and/or creativity it takes to publish an article.” —Richard Monastersky

from The Chronicle: Daily News Blog, Sept 27, 2007

Clinical Drug Trial Data - LA Times article

November 16th, 2007 by Karen Fischer

Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Opening up the findings of drug trials, Los Angeles Times, September 17, 2007. [You must be a registered user of LA Times to view the full-article]

Excerpt:

…Now [after the Avandia controversy] Congress, scientists and advocacy groups want to open up the world of [drug] trials in hopes of heading off problems with new drugs sooner.

“Human subject research is only ethical if it is used to advance science, not the interests of a particular company,” said Sean Hennessy, an epidemiology professor at the University of Pennsylvania medical school….

Although there is wide agreement that the system for reporting on clinical trials needs an overhaul, there are sharp disagreements on just how to do it….

For one thing, there is no central, easily searchable database to which drug makers are required to post all trial results….

[S]ince most decisions on drug safety involve balancing benefits against risks — almost no drug is 100% safe — making it easier to examine clinical trial data helps patients and doctors decide whether a drug is right for a particular situation….

The dispute is over how to publish the results of trials.

The House bill directs the NIH to set up a database showing results in addition to the current clinical trials registry. The results database would include a nontechnical summary of each clinical trial and its outcome, as well as basic technical findings on effectiveness and safety that are of interest to researchers and regulators.

Results would have to be posted within 12 months after the research is finished.

The Senate bill does not lay out such a specific blueprint. Instead, it directs the NIH to conduct a feasibility study on how to set up the results database. The agency would have to seek input from all interested parties, including industry, the medical community and advocates for patients. Under the legislation, that process could take up to 2 1/2 years.

“The House version is likely to lead to a pretty good database quite quickly, whereas it’s much less clear with the Senate version,” said Peter Lurie, deputy director of the Public Citizen Health Research Group. “The concern is that the Senate version will lead to a kind of purgatory in which the database is promised but never emerges in a useful form.” …

Elsevier Launches a Medical Wiki

November 16th, 2007 by Karen Fischer

Elsevier launches a medical wiki

Elsevier has launched WiserWiki, a wiki on medical research aimed at both practicing physicians and lay readers. (Thanks to Graham Steel.) From the site:

This website was originally started with content from the “Textbook of Primary Care Medicine” (3rd Edition) by John Noble – a leading figure in primary care medicine. It is evolving to become a key source of authoritative, online medical information.

Like most Wikis on the internet (such as Wikipedia), WiserWiki can be read by anyone who has internet access. However, unlike most Wikis, WiserWiki can only be edited by board certified doctors to ensure that the information is as trustworthy and reliable as possible. Doctors can also use WiserWiki as a valuable resource to collaborate with each other and to determine best practices by group consensus….

As WiserWiki is currently in beta version, we are experimenting with various ways to make it a better site for you as a user. We hope that users will continually evolve the site to best suit their needs. Therefore, we welcome your feedback and suggestions! Please check back often as we hope to add additional features and functionality….

WiserWiki is provided as a free service by Elsevier….

Frequently Asked Questions…

Q: I see that there are ads on this site. Where does the revenue from these ads go?

A: We do not currently expect to generate a significant amount of revenue on WiserWiki and hope to use the proceeds to recover the costs of operating and managing the site….

Q: How accurate is the information on this site?

A: As WiserWiki is a collaborative project, it is up to the contributors to substantiate the accuracy of the information. Elsevier does not validate the accuracy of submissions. However, we hope to maintain a high level of relevancy and trustworthiness by ensuring that editorial privileges are restricted to medical professionals only….

Q: Does this site cost anything to access?

A: No. The site is free to users.

Q: Who holds the copyright to the information submitted on this site?

A: Contributors retain the copyright to information they contribute to WiserWiki. Please read our Terms & Conditions….

Read Peter Suber’s comments about WiserWiki at: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/11/elsevier-launches-medical-wiki.html

Open Access News, Nov. 16, 2007

Decision to Disclose Information Can Enter Gray Area

November 16th, 2007 by Karen Fischer

Edward Lotterman, Decision to disclose information can enter gray area, TwinCities.com, October 24, 2007. Excerpt:

NASA made news this week when it was reported the agency had conducted a major study of aviation safety, interviewing over 20,000 pilots, and then sat on the data. An official defended that decision because the findings could damage the public’s confidence in airlines and affect airline profits, according to an Associated Press story.

Similarly, the Minnesota Department of Health recently sat on information about deaths of mining workers from mesothelioma. Then-Commissioner Dianne Mandernach said the delay in releasing the data was necessary while the department designed a research program to study them.

The question of what information should be available to whom - and when - is a knotty one. Information is valuable to an economy. More information generally lets people and businesses make better decisions. Markets function more efficiently when information is plentiful for buyers and sellers than when it is scarce.

However, personal privacy rights and legitimate needs of business confidentiality dictate that much government information be withheld from the public….

In both the NASA and state Health Department cases, an administrator decided that because the pubic might not interpret information correctly, it should not be released at all. This is patronizing to the public. Mining workers exposed to asbestos can make better decisions about their own health care if they know the full risk of their past exposure. The public can make better decisions about flying if they have more information about safety. If there are serious concerns about data being misleading, that can be addressed when the data are released.

Moreover, public disclosure of data allows others to analyze them. They can announce findings that confirm, refute or alter initial impressions created by the raw data. Open access to data that permits others to replicate research is a key aspect of modern science….

Hardin Scholarly Communication News is proudly powered by WordPress MU