Open Season on NIH's Draft

Open Season on NIH's Draft "Open Access" Policy

SPIN readers have no doubt been following the story of NIH's release of a draft "open access" policy in September. That proposed policy would require scientific publishers to make available to NIH's PubMed Central database, without charge, any article that was based in whole or in part on NIH-funded research. Prompted by patient organizations who would like a free, one-stop shop to review all publications on NIH-funded research, and by NIH itself, to demonstrate accountability to Congress and the taxpayers, the new policy has prompted a deluge of criticism among publishers of scientific journals, including APA.

Comments on the draft proposal were due to NIH on November 16, 2004. As NIH began reviewing them, the U.S. Senate stepped in with language in the omnibus funding bill urging NIH to move more slowly (see below).

In comments to NIH, APA noted numerous concerns about the policy, including that NIH itself has no idea how the policy will impact scientific publishing and the fragile reward structure that keeps some journals in business. APA recommended that NIH proceed in a more deliberative fashion, involving publishers and gathering data before it enacts a potentially disruptive policy. The APA comments noted that "open access" would likely require journals to charge authors to publish their articles. That could result in less access to publications for new investigators, those whose research funding is interrupted, and populations such as minority investigators who have traditionally faced more barriers to academic and research careers.

Review the NIH proposal
Review APA's comments [PDF 60K]

Along with numerous scientific publishers, APA's Norman Anderson sent a letter to U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) *[PDF 40K] who chairs the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, which funds the NIH. His letter stated, in part:

The stated reason for NIH to move to an "open access" policy is so that the lay public may have easier access to the research literature. It is certainly an open question whether open access is the best way to improve the ability of the lay public to access results of NIH funding. APA's long history in producing information for the public leads us to assert that publications written specifically for lay audiences will be much more accessible and understandable than scientific journals. Scientists themselves need help to put research findings outside their specialty in context.

The omnibus appropriations bill passed by Congress on Friday, November 19, was seen as the last chance for Congress to intervene before NIH enacts an open access policy. Language added to that bill by Sen. Specter states:

NIH is directed to give full and fair consideration to all comments before publishing its final policy. The conferees request NIH to provide the estimated costs of implementing this policy each year in its annual Justification of Estimates to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. In addition, the conferees direct NIH to continue to work with the publishers of scientific journals to maintain the integrity of the peer review system.

While it remains to be seen whether the Senate language will impact NIH's determination to enact an "open access" policy, it is evidence that the scientific publishers have made some headway in raising red flags about hasty implementation of an untested policy.

Tune in next month to learn about any new developments on this issue.

Read the NIH proposal
Read APA's comments [PDF 60K]
Read Norman Anderson's letter to Sen. Arlen Specter [PDF 40K]

Back to SPIN November 2004