NIH public access policy: Opportunity for a new library service? Erja Kajosalo Erja Kajosalo 3/23/09 Digitally signed by Erja Kajosalo DN: cn=erja Kajosalo, o, ou, email=kajosalo@mit. edu, c=us Date: 2009.04.01 10:04:33-04'00' ACS National Meeting, Salt Lake UT
Outline NIH public access policy and author rights issues related to this policy Report on a recent ethnographic study of NIH funded authors 3/23/09 ACS National Meeting, Salt Lake UT
NIH Public Access Policy NIH goal Ensure that the public has access to the published results of NIH funded research Help advance science and improve human health On January 11, 2008, the National Institutes of Health adopted a revised and now mandatory Public Access Policy Compliance with the policy is a term and condition of all grants and cooperative agreements active in Fiscal Year 2008 or beyond, and for all contracts awarded after April 7, 2008.
Policy applies to any manuscript that Is peer-reviewed; Is accepted for publication in a journal on or after April 7, 2008 Arises from: Any direct funding from an NIH grant or cooperative agreement active in Fiscal Year 2008, or Any direct funding from an NIH contract signed on or after April 7, 2008, or; Any direct funding from the NIH Intramural Program, or; An NIH employee.
What is PubMed Central? http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ The U.S. National Institutes of Health free digital archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature. PubMed Central was developed and is operated by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a division of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). 570 journals (3/3/09) and the author manuscripts of articles published by NIH-funded researchers in various non-pmc journals.
PubMed Central Interface
Who is responsible? Principal Investigators and their institutions are responsible for ensuring that articles that arise directly from their awards, even if the PI is not an author or coauthor Submitted to PubMed Central no later than 12 months after publication.
Publisher Agreements and Copyright To comply you need address copyright first From the NIH FAQ: Authors should avoid signing any agreements with publishers that do not allow the author to comply with the NIH Public Access Policy. If a journal presents an author with a copyright transfer agreement, the author should not sign it if it does not allow the author to submit the final, peer-reviewed manuscript to PubMed Central within 12 months of the publication date.
Submission to PubMed Central (1) Submitting to PMC is required even if you publish in an open access journal, or if the article is freely accessible on the publisher's website. Three possible paths: 1. PUBLISHER IS PMC PARTNER, SUBMITS FOR AUTHOR: NO AUTHOR ACTION NEEDED. Some journals have a contractual agreement with PMC to submit the final published version of the article to PubMed Central on their authors' behalf For titles on this list, the author does not need to take any additional action.
Submission to PubMed Central (2) 2. PUBLISHER PROMISES TO SUBMIT NIH- FUNDED ARTICLES: AUTHOR MUST APPROVE. If the author indicates NIH funding, the publisher promises to submit the article to PubMed Central for the author. The author /PI will still need to review the article when and as submitted by the journal to PubMed Central, and sign off on its accuracy and completeness. This approval step will not be needed, if the author chooses the open access fee option for these publishers. (e.g. Springer Open Choice)
Submission to PubMed Central (3) 3. PUBLISHER DOES NOT SUBMIT: AUTHOR MUST SUBMIT AND APPROVE. If the journal is not on PMC's partner list and does not have a special arrangement for NIH-funded authors, then the author needs to submit the final peer-reviewed manuscript using the NIH's Manuscript Submission System. The author will need to review the article after PubMed Central formats it, and sign off on its accuracy and completeness.
What s the difference? Final peer-reviewed manuscript: The Investigator's final manuscript of a peer-reviewed paper accepted for journal publication, including all modifications from the peer review process. Final published article: The journal s authoritative copy of the paper, including all modifications from the publishing peer review process, copyediting and stylistic edits, and formatting changes.
JACS article (1)
JACS article (2)
JACS article (3)
PubMed Central Article (1)
PubMed Central Article (2)
After Submission? The NIHMS will email the author and all PIs the citation with the PMCID once it is assigned Authors and PIs should be begin collecting PubMed Central reference numbers as well as NIH Manuscript Submission System reference numbers as proof of deposit. As of May 25, 2008, these numbers will be required in all progress reports, proposals, and grant applications when citing papers that arose from your NIH award.
NIH Publishing Practices Project (NP3) - Background The open access movement and the NIH mandate brought the Libraries' attention to the needs of authors in a changing publishing environment. It is important for authors to be aware of how manage their rights to their publications so that they have the freedom to reuse their work, and can comply with research funder requirements that their work be openly available The Libraries need to come to a in-depth understanding of the decision-making and workflow processes that researchers use when publishing their work in order to determine mix of services that The Libraries could offer to MIT authors
NP3 - Scope The project will focus on NIH-funded researchers, because of the current pressing need for support complying with the new NIH Public Access Policy. We will study the publication process from the point that the researcher determines the need to publish, through selection of a venue, submission of the article, peer-review, revision, acceptance, publishing and post-publishing activities. The study will include publishing as it relates to journals only. The project team will choose a method by interviewing key NIH researchers to understand what methods would be most effective and sensitive to the researchers' needs.
NP3 - Goals Document the publishing decision-making and workflow processes used by NIH researchers at MIT. Indicate points of variability and areas of challenge for the researcher. Recommend aspects that would benefit from targeted services.
Ethnography ethnography \eth-'nä-gr?-fe\ n. the study and systematic recording of human cultures; also: a descriptive work produced from such research listening to the customers voice helping discover ideas & concepts a branch of anthropology dealing with the scientific description of individual cultures. Qualitative method you ve done when you are not learning anything new
NP3 Study NP3 wiki Interview procedure (e.g. privacy in filenames) Interview questions Consent form Contact and follow-up emails Thank you notes 13 interviews (biology, chemistry, chemical engineering, biological engineering, brains & cogitative science)
NP3 Study (cont.) Interviewer and scriber (also recorded) LiveScribe Pen - http://www.livescribe.com/
NP3 LiveScribe
NP3 Study (cont.) Interview Summary Form filled after each interview NIH submission (e.g. would like help from Libraries with submission?) Data management (e.g. feel that data is hard to access over time?) Posting work/self-biography (Knows if allowed to post?) Publication agreement (e.g. doesn't read or understand?)
Publishing Workflow Analysis Research/Lab work Publishable unit Journal selection Draft manuscript Revise Manuscript Submit Redraft Resubmit Review final proofs Copyright NIH compliance Post publication activities Reviewer revisions
Publishing Workflow Analysis Research/ Lab work grant writing a key part of research process; 'gets you to talk about the problem'; provides a 'good seed for writing the paper new research may be follow-up work from drafting of manuscript Loves research!
Publishing Workflow Analysis (cont.) Publishable Unit Publishes when research tells a story Starts with figures, selects story from figures How many publications depends on students progress Faculty writes the abstract often
Publishing Workflow Analysis (cont.) Journal Selection journal selection influenced by membership in a professional society that publishes journals (e.g. ACS, PNAS) picked journal when developing idea for the paper picked journal after gathering all the data Readership of journal and relevance to subject matter key in deciding which journal picked journal based on audience and technical qualifications (e.g. accepts color)
Publishing Workflow Analysis (cont.) Draft Manuscript Key aspect of drafting is to focus on making it possible to tell right away "what is special, original about the paper" Begin draft once have sufficient preliminary data Outline: Faculty member usually writes the introduction (e.g. references to seminal work) and creates outline Much time spent on experimental details and figures Students create the figures most of the time Grad students / post docs write initial draft Discussion often written by faculty member Assistants and grad students/postdocs handle references
Publishing Workflow Analysis (cont.) Revise Manuscript Drafts: They hand drafts back and forth; she may make some edits in emailed version but mostly it's a hard copy process Iterative process (up to 20 iterations) working with students -- may circle back for more experiments to obtain more data. Close to submit when edits shift from substance to style managing versions "not a problem PI prints copy and makes edit for students with pen, since he wants them to think about change (rather than skimming or automatically clicking "accept change ) destroys what the postdocs/students write and they rewrite it. This is how he teaches them to write.
Publishing Workflow Analysis (cont.) Submit Figures require much work Must put cite to data repository Each publication has its own standards Student handles journal requirements Acknowledgements Each journal submission process different "not very involved Just use the website
Publishing Workflow Analysis (cont.) Reviewer Revisions Rejection hurts Reviewers can be slow and need to follow up with editors Some reviewers useful, others not. Can sink submission Used to get detailed notes from editors -- now has to figure out what they changed Able to select his own reviewers (e.g. PNAS if member) Reviewers comments: need to distribute to all authors Sometimes need to write back about why you don't agree with reviewers
Publishing Workflow Analysis (cont.) Redraft/Resubmit If there are positive reviews, it's accepted, and you make the suggested changes and resubmit Choose another journal Revision aimed for new journal Students needs a lot of writing help Might need to make high resolution images and make minor modifications
Publishing Workflow Analysis (cont.) Copyright and Compliance Do not read, just sign; no time to read, the font is too small Typically signs, doesn't think about it Throws agreements away, though keeps scanned copy Tracking down co-authors hassle Adapts figures in papers to avoid getting permissions Tried MIT amendment - one acceptance others rejected Assistant handles all copyright transfer agreements Writes 'subject to compliance w/nih Publications policy' on copyright agreements
Publishing Workflow Analysis (cont.) NIH Compliance Thinks that the publisher takes care of this Doesn't deal with. Specifically says would like help with submission to NIH Sends final paper to journal or NLM. If journal doesn't send to PubMed Central, he gets multiple proofs from the publisher. It's a lot of work. Resents PI approval requirement Uncompensated overhead Pain in the xxx Picked a journal that he thought would automatically submit the article Doesn't care. Doesn't think it matters. Doesn't like NIH policy Necessary to have someone re-proofread the paper to make sure the right copy was submitted
Publishing Workflow Analysis (cont.) Post publication activities not interested in sharing via a website or in that kind of 'selfpromotion Save some early drafts if they have data that wasn't published Wouldn't mind if library collected final versions of PDFs Updates his online bibliography for the lab every 6 months I figure anyone who needs to can access my articles, but I send a copy to those who can't Saving data for the long term - students put data and papers on a DVD which are collected and stored by his assistant
Conclusions Submitting articles to PubMed Central not feasible as a library service. Larger scholarly communication education and other campus-wide involvement is worthwhile (e.g. MIT Faculty Open Access mandate passed unanimously, includes opt-out clause, archived in DSpace). Help with long-term data storage? Authors would prefer to use the final published PDF version for all compliance purposes, and self-archiving libraries could work with publishers?
Acknowledgments NP3 members Courtney Crummett (co-convener) Ellen Duranceau (co-convener) Tracy Gabridge Erja Kajosalo Michael Noga http://info-libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/