Date: November 17, 2004
Contact: Public Affairs Office
(202) 336-5700

APA EXPRESSES CONCERN OVER NIH’S DRAFT POLICY FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RESEARCH -- WARNS IT COULD HURT THE DISSEMINATION OF IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC RESULTS

WASHINGTON — Public access to research is a worthwhile goal but the possible unintended consequences of the current NIH proposal need to be considered, said the American Psychological Association (APA) in a letter sent to NIH Director, Dr. Elias Zerhouni this week.

The APA is concerned that the proposed new policy of making available newly published NIH-funded research manuscripts (within six months of publication) to other scientists, health care providers, students, teachers and consumers may have unanticipated and damaging consequences. Free access to research could create fewer publishing outlets and reduce editorial scrutiny that may sacrifice the integrity, diversity and impact of scientific results, said Steven Breckler, Ph.D., APA’s Executive Director for Science.

Furthermore, many scholarly journals that operate on the edge of a profit or at a loss, underwritten by organizations like APA, invest in knowledge dissemination to advance science and for the public good, said Dr. Breckler. “A possible decrease in the number of outlets available to researchers would decrease the exchange of scientific information rather than increase it.” (APA publishes 37 scholarly journals in psychology and five scholarly databases of scientific and professional information for and about psychology and related fields).

APA’s other concerns about the proposed policy are:

• The quality of science depends on the availability of publication outlets and on the scientific peer process. Scientific publishers, such as APA can only maintain the highest quality publishing standards by investing considerable resources in editorial and peer review infrastructure. These resources depend on the sale of scientific publications.
• The possible reduction in the availability of scientific publication outlets could harm the entire scientific enterprise and make it harder for researchers, including those supported by NIH grants, to disseminate their results. The financial impact will hurt the second tier scientific journals (excluding first tier JAMA and NEJM) and may jeopardize their ability to exist with reduced revenue that will follow a six-month release.
• Scientific publishing will still cost the same but the burden of costs will shift from the scientific publisher to the authors and funding agency. Authors who have more financial resources will have more access to scientific publishing whereas those who do not possess such resources may be denied access to scientific publishing.
• Discrimination could occur against scientists of color. Those researchers who historically have had more difficulty securing NIH grants are less likely to have funding to publish their research findings if journals are forced to move to author-pays policies.
• Location of articles in one place does not make the research more accessible or understandable to the public. Lay audiences, and even scientific audiences outside of each journal’s specialty, need help to interpret research results.
• Policy lacks clear directions on responsibilities. The policy does not offer specifics on copy right protections, tell researchers whether all or only part of their research publication will be included or inform who pockets the additional costs: NIH or the taxpayer?

APA shares the goal of broad dissemination of research results to the scientific community and to the public but believes that these goals can be achieved in more efficient ways than proposed by NIH, said Gary R. VandenBos, Ph.D., Executive Director of APA’s Communications and Publications.

“An alternative to having a full, final manuscript deposited in one location,” said Dr. VandenBos, “is to use a full citation, including the final, published abstract with a link to the author of the study. This will allow NIH to build a searchable electronic resource of NIH-funded research but without creating an undue burden on the agency, on publishers or on authors. Publishers and authors could also produce two abstracts – one written for a scientific audience and another for a lay audience. This approach could communicate the results to audiences who have different needs and goals.”

“NIH’s proposal for free access to research articles needs to be carefully studied for the potential effect on the quality and quantity of research and how it will help inform the public,“ said Norman B. Anderson, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the APA. “This access may do little to help the average consumer understand the latest scientific finding because most research is written in complex technical language. Federal energies would be better spent creating public information products on the latest scientific discoveries that the public can easily understand and put to use.”

The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington, DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world’s largest association of psychologists. APA’s membership includes more than 150,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 53 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting health, education and human welfare.