12/07/09 GAIL suggests we delete this slide. Assume audience knows this already PMC seen as a stable long-term digital repository. For many years built content voluntarily, but NIH policy definitely raised PMC’s profile. Official PDF not required, as this has publisher branding. Word docs are sufficient for terms of policy, although many publishers facilitate deposit of their own PDFs. 12 month embargo is a compromise between the interests of librarians (who often advocate for short or no embargos) and publishers (who would seek a longer embargo and/or the ability to establish their own embargo periods without a government mandate.) Copyright law—Key educational point for faculty is that they own the copyrights on their articles until they sign it over; and that copyright is a collection of rights which they can parcel out in negotiations with publishers.
12/07/09 --Estimated deposit rate in voluntary period: 5% (NLM Public Access Working Group--http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/nihfaq.htm) --Goals: Point here is that it’s a compromise between competing interests --Similar mandates: Wellcome Trust, European Commission (many others: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/)
12/07/09 Resnag this image so that there is not so much white space on the right and graph can be larger? Add arrow when became mandatory; if available, find % of increase/compliance. Source: http://www.nihms.nih.gov/stats/index.shtml
12/07/09 --Average 1 or 2 questions per month: Email/phone. Not inundated, but steady trickle.
12/07/09 Methods: Survey has 9 questions Conducted interviews as well as survey. Felt interviews would give us greater understanding of faculty perspective and weren’t sure how many people would actually take the survey.
12/07/09 Other interesting data: 100% of those who had received a grant in the past year said they were aware of the concept of OA. They were 50/50 on considering OA when selecting where to publish.
12/07/09 Most of our faculty were aware of the policy. The information from NIH and C&G seemed to get their attention. They know about the policy, but they don’t necessarily know a lot about how it came about and the broader issues. After only one year, it is too soon for faculty to see much of an impact, but there were a few who indicated that they have already noticed increased access. When asking about the positives and the negatives of the policy, we received many more responses regarding the positives. They would seem to outweigh the negatives in our researchers’ minds. NOTE: 80% of people did it themselves; researchers tend to be very independent.
12/07/09 The problem of all survey research, alas. Randomized controlled trials are much more powerful and exponentially harder to conduct. Survey wording influence: e.g. may have been a factor in the positives vs. negatives questions. Maybe we left out an important negative that would have drawn a large response. N=200 a larger response rate than we expected, but survey went to N~7,500 (2.67% response rate). Self-selected respondents; likely a biased group. Survey wording of multiple choice options may have influenced results
Mla Nih 2009 Final
Impact of the NIH Public Access Policy: A Unique Opportunity to Engage with Faculty About Open Access Publishing. Marcus Banks, David J. Owen and Gail Persily UC San Francisco Library and CKM Medical Library Association meeting, Honolulu May 2009
NIH Public Access Policy Defined <ul><li>Scientists receiving grant money from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) must submit copies of their research papers to PubMed Central (PMC) when those papers are accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. </li></ul>
NIH Public Access Policy Background <ul><li>Voluntary from 2005-2008 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Low rates of deposit to PubMed Central (~5%) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Required from 2008 – present </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Permanently written into US law with President Obama’s 2009 budget </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Goals: To further taxpayer access to publicly funded research, while preserving publisher business models </li></ul><ul><li>Similar mandates from other funding agencies </li></ul>
What a Difference a Mandate Makes Source: http://www.nihms.nih.gov/stats/
UCSF Library Efforts <ul><li>Similar to those of many colleagues in MLA: </li></ul><ul><li>Web page: http://library.ucsf.edu/help/scholpub </li></ul><ul><li>Blog postings on citation issues ( PMCID ): http://inplaincite.library.ucsf.edu/search/label/NIH </li></ul><ul><li>Email and phone reference service </li></ul><ul><li>Presentations to faculty and research assistants </li></ul><ul><li>Internal staff training </li></ul><ul><li>Outreach to Contracts and Grants office </li></ul><ul><ul><li>C&G referring questions to Library </li></ul></ul>
Research Questions and Methods <ul><li>Questions: </li></ul><ul><li>What percentage of UCSF researchers have been affected by NIH Public Access Policy? </li></ul><ul><li>How often did people seek assistance from UCSF Library? </li></ul><ul><li>Has the NIH Policy changed attitudes about open access? </li></ul><ul><li>Methods: </li></ul><ul><li>Brief survey emailed to all faculty and academic staff </li></ul><ul><li>Interviews with recent NIH grant recipients, some of whom sought our assistance </li></ul>
Findings: Survey <ul><li>N=200 </li></ul><ul><li>83% are aware or highly aware of the policy </li></ul><ul><li>45% were required to comply with policy in last year </li></ul><ul><li>80% figured out how to comply with policy on their own </li></ul><ul><ul><li>If they sought help, usually went to publisher or NIH/NLM rather than Library </li></ul></ul><ul><li>41% consider a journal’s OA policy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hard to untangle if the NIH Policy had a direct impact on this or was incidental, without further analysis </li></ul></ul>
Findings: Researcher and Administrative Assistant Interviews <ul><li>N=7 (6 researchers, 1 administrative assistant) </li></ul><ul><li>General concurrence that policy is good </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Value wider access to research articles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Too soon to see much impact </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sensitivity to position of society publishers (n=1) </li></ul><ul><li>Concern about extra burdens placed on researchers </li></ul><ul><li>Common “nuts and bolts” questions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Confusion about PMID vs. PMCID </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>When to cite the NIHMS number in lieu of a PMCID </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Some libraries performing significant service by depositing articles for researchers; not always feasible or scalable </li></ul>
Conclusions <ul><li>UCSF faculty aware of the policy; NIH regulations get their attention </li></ul><ul><li>Large majority of researchers determined how to comply with policy themselves </li></ul><ul><li>One year into the policy too soon to understand impact, but some researchers did note a positive impact </li></ul><ul><li>Responses indicate that benefits of policy outweigh the negatives </li></ul>
Plans for Further Analysis <ul><ul><li>Publication of survey instrument on our web site </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Submission of Brief Communication to JMLA that provides more nuanced analysis </li></ul></ul>
Questions? <ul><li>Thanks very much. </li></ul><ul><li>UCSF Scholarly Publication Page/Public Access to NIH-Funded Research </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.library.ucsf.edu/help/scholpub/nih </li></ul>