This document summarizes recent federal mandates requiring open access to publications and data resulting from federally funded scientific research. It discusses a 2013 White House memo requiring federal agencies spending over $100 million annually on research to develop public access plans. It also outlines policies from agencies like NIH, NSF, and NOAA requiring data management plans and sharing of published results and supporting data. Stakeholder responses to these mandates like the CHORUS publishing initiative and the SHARE academic consortium proposal are also summarized.

1. FEDERAL
FUNDER
MANDATES
FOR
OPEN
ACCESS
Sherry Lake
Data Management Consulting Group
Research Data Services
University of Virginia Library
Andrea Horne Denton
Research and Data Services Manager
Claude Moore Health Sciences Library
Open Access Week
October 22, 2014

2. Today
We’ll
Cover
• What
brings
us
here:
recent
White
House
policy
decisions
• What
got
us
here:
past
efforts
with
manda=ng
sharing
of
publica=ons
and
data
• What’s
happening
today
• What’s
next

3. Increasing
the
Access
to
the
Results
of
Federally
Funded
ScienAfic
Research
Memo
released
February
22,
2013
To
ensure
that
“…direct
results
of
federally
funded
scien2fic
research
are
made
available…
Federal
agencies
inves2ng
in
research
and
development
(more
than
$100M
in
annual
expenditures)
must
develop
plans
to
support
increased
public
access
to
the
results
of
research
…”
hBp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf

4. Public
Access
Plan
Components
1. Leverage
exis=ng
archives;
partner
w/
journals
(where
appropriate)
2. Improve
the
public’s
ability
to
locate
and
access
digital
data
3. Approach
to
op=mize
search,
archival,
and
dissemina=on
features
that
encourage
innova=on
in
accessibility
&
interoperability
and
ensure
long-­‐term
stewardship
4. A
plan
to
no=fy
awardees
&
researchers
of
their
obliga=ons
5. Strategy
for
measuring
and
enforcing
compliance
with
the
plan

5. Public
Access
to
Scien=fic
Publica=ons
…
“the
results
of
unclassified
research
that
are
published
in
peer-­‐reviewed
publica2ons
…
should
be
stored
for
long-­‐term
preserva7on
and
publicly
accessible
to
search,
retrieve,
and
analyze
in
ways
that
maximize
the
impact
and
accountability
…”
• 12-­‐month
post-­‐publica=on
embargo
• Ensure
aZribu=on
is
maintained
• No
charge
for
access

6. Public
Access
to
Scien=fic
Data
in
Digital
Formats
…
“digitally
formaBed
scien2fic
data
resul2ng
from
unclassified
research
supported
wholly
or
in
part…
should
be
stored
and
publicly
accessible
to
search,
retrieve,
and
analyze.”
• Protect
confiden=ality
&
personal
privacy
• Ensure
appropriate
aZribu=on
• No
charge
for
access
• Require
Data
Management
Plans

7. Data
Management
Plan
Requirements
Researchers
to
include:
• Descrip=on
for
long-­‐term
preserva=on
and
access
• Appropriate
costs
for
data
management
and
access
Funders
ensure:
• Evalua=on
criteria
for
DMP
• Mechanisms
for
compliance
with
DMP
and
policies
• Support
of
training
related
to
data
management

8. History
of
US
Funding
Agencies
Requirements
• The
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(OMB)
Circular
A-­‐110
provides
the
federal
administra=ve
requirements
for
grants
and
agreements
with
ins=tu=ons
of
higher
educa=on,
hospitals
and
other
non-­‐profit
organiza=ons.
• In1999,
revised
to
provide
public
access
under
some
circumstances
to
research
data
through
the
Freedom
of
Informa=on
Act
(FOIA).
• Funding
agencies
have
implemented
the
OMB
requirement
in
various
ways.

9. FEDERAL
MANDATES
AROUND
PUBLICATION
SHARING

10. Federal
mandates
around
publica=on
sharing
1997
Move
toward
greater
access
–
free
PubMed

11. Federal
mandates
around
publica=on
sharing
1999
Harold
Varmus,
NIH
Director
Public
comment
on
crea=on
of
a
pre-­‐print
and
publica=on
archive
of
biomedical
papers
Controversial…

12. Federal
mandates
around
publica=on
sharing
Early
2000’s
Open
access
biomedical
journals
BioMedCentral
founded
in
2000
Increased
publisher
access
to
their
online
ar=cles

13. Federal
mandates
around
publica=on
sharing
2004
New
NIH
Policy
proposed
in
Sept:
NOT-­‐
OD-­‐04-­‐064
“Enhanced
Public
Access
to
NIH
Research
Informa=on”
– Elias
Zerhouni,
NIH
Director
(encouraged
by
Congress)
– Much
discussion
and
concern

14. Federal
mandates
around
publica=on
sharing
2005
Policy
enacted
reques=ng
deposit
of
eligible
(NIH-­‐funded)
papers
into
PubMed
Central
– Very
low
compliance
(5%)

15. Federal
mandates
around
publica=on
sharing
2008
NIH
Public
Access
Policy
implements
Division
F
Sec=on
217
of
PL
111-­‐8
(Omnibus
Appropria=ons
Act,
2009).
Require
vs.
request

16. Federal
mandates
around
publica=on
sharing
2008
The
Director
of
the
Na2onal
Ins2tutes
of
Health
("NIH")
shall
require
in
the
current
fiscal
year
and
thereaUer
that
all
inves2gators
funded
by
the
NIH
submit
or
have
submiBed
for
them
to
the
Na2onal
Library
of
Medicine's
PubMed
Central
an
electronic
version
of
their
final,
peer-­‐reviewed
manuscripts
upon
acceptance
for
publica2on,
to
be
made
publicly
available
no
later
than
12
months
aUer
the
official
date
of
publica2on:
Provided,
that
the
NIH
shall
implement
the
public
access
policy
in
a
manner
consistent
with
copyright
law.

17. Federal
mandates
around
publica=on
sharing
2013
Changes
to
Public
Access
Policy
Compliance
Efforts
– NIH
will
delay
processing
of
an
award
if
publica=ons
arising
from
it
are
not
in
compliance
with
the
NIH
public
access
policy
– Compliance
s=ll
only
around
86%

18. FEDERAL
MANDATES
AROUND
DATA
SHARING

19. NSF
Data
Archiving
and
Sharing
Policy
Prior
to
2011
To
advance
science
by
encouraging
data
sharing
among
researchers:
• Data
obtained
with
federal
funds
be
accessible
to
the
general
public
• Grantees
must
develop
and
submit
specific
plans
to
share
materials
collected
with
NSF
support,
except
where
this
is
inappropriate
or
impossible

20. NSF
Dissemina=on
&
Sharing
of
Research
Results
“Inves=gators
are
expected
to
share
with
other
researchers,
at
no
more
than
incremental
cost
and
within
a
reasonable
=me,
the
primary
data,
samples,
physical
collec=ons
and
other
suppor=ng
materials
created
or
gathered
in
the
course
of
work
under
NSF
grants.
Grantees
are
expected
to
encourage
and
facilitate
such
sharing.”
NaAonal
Science
FoundaAon:
Award
&
Administra2on
Guide
(AAG)
Chapter
VI.D.4

21. NSF
Plan
for
Data
Management
&
Sharing
of
the
Products
of
Research
As
of
January
18,
2011:
“Proposals
must
include
a
supplementary
document
of
no
more
than
two
pages
labeled
Data
Management
Plan.
This
supplement
should
describe
how
the
proposal
will
conform
to
NSF
policy
on
the
disseminaAon
and
sharing
of
research
results,
and
may
include…...”
NSF:
Grant
Proposal
Guide
(GPG)
Chapter
II.C.2.j

22. Parts
of
a
(Generic)
NSF
Data
Management
Plan
I. Products
of
the
Research:
The
types
of
data,
samples,
physical
collec=ons,
sonware,
curriculum
materials,
and
other
materials
to
be
produced
in
the
course
of
the
project.
II. Data
Formats:
The
standards
to
be
used
for
data
and
metadata
format
and
content
(where
exis=ng
standards
are
absent
or
deemed
inadequate,
this
should
be
documented
along
with
any
proposed
solu=ons
or
remedies).
III. Access
to
Data
and
Data
Sharing
PracAces
and
Policies:
Policies
for
access
and
sharing
including
provisions
for
appropriate
protec=on
of
privacy,
confiden=ality,
security,
intellectual
property,
or
other
rights
or
requirements.
IV. Policies
for
Re-­‐Use,
Re-­‐DistribuAon,
and
ProducAon
of
DerivaAves.
V. Archiving
of
Data:
Plans
for
archiving
data,
samples,
and
other
research
products,
and
for
preserva=on
of
access
to
them.
NSF:
Grant
Proposal
Guide
(GPG)
Chapter
II.C.2.j

23. NIH
Requirement
“Inves2gators
seeking
$500,000
or
more
in
direct
costs
in
any
year
should
include
a
descrip7on
of
how
final
research
data
will
be
shared,
or
explain
why
data
sharing
is
not
possible.
It
is
expected
that
the
data
sharing
discussion
will
be
provided
primarily
in
the
form
of
a
brief
paragraph…”
NIH
Data
Sharing
Policy
&
Implementa=on
Guidance
hZp://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm#inc

24. NIH:
What
to
Include
(in
your
paragraph)
•
Schedule
for
data
sharing
•
Format
of
final
dataset
•
Documenta=on
to
be
provided
•
Analy=cal
tools
to
be
provided,
if
any
•
Need
for
data
sharing
agreement
•
Mode
of
data
sharing

25. NIH
Data
Sharing
Repositories
data
accessible
for
reuse
hZp://www.nlm.nih.gov/NIHbmic/nih_data_sharing_repositories.html

26. Who’s
Requiring
Data
Sharing
or
Data
Management?
Require
a
Data
Management
Plan
(DMP)
Require
Sharing
of
Results
–
per
a
Data
Policy
• Na=onal
Science
Founda=on
• Na=onal
Ins=tutes
of
Health
• Na=onal
Oceanographic
and
Atmospheric
Research
(NOAA)
• Ins=tute
of
Museum
and
Library
Services
(IMLS)
• Na=onal
Endowment
of
Humani=es
–
office
of
digital
humani=es
(NEH)
• NASA
• NEH
–
Preserva=on
&
Access
• IES
–
Ins=tute
of
Educa=on
Sciences
This
list
is
not
inclusive

27. WHAT’S
HAPPENING
NOW?

28. Increasing
the
Access
to
the
Results
of
Federally
Funded
ScienAfic
Research
Memo
released
February
22,
2013
To
ensure
that
“…direct
results
of
federally
funded
scien2fic
research
are
made
available…
Federal
agencies
inves2ng
in
research
and
development
(more
than
$100M
in
annual
expenditures)
must
develop
plans
to
support
increased
public
access
to
the
results
of
research
…”
hBp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf

29. Update
March
2014
• All
required
agencies
have
submiZed
plans
• OMB
&
OSTP
reviewed
and
commented
on
plans
• Agencies
working
to
iden=fy
infrastructure
solu=ons
to
support
their
plans
• Interagency
mee=ngs
soon
to
discuss
solu=ons
and
strategies
hBp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/OpenAccess_March-­‐2014.pdf

30. Publishers’
Response
CHORUS
Clearing
House
for
the
Open
Research
of
the
United
States
“...gives
the
public
access
to
publicly
funded
scien2fic
findings
via
embargoed
access
to
publishers’
final
approved,
edited,
and
formaBed
papers.”
www.chorusaccess.org

31. • Partnerships
with
mul=ple
publishers
-­‐
uses
their
exis=ng
publica=on
infrastructure
• Collects
publica=on
metadata
and
makes
it
available
to
the
agencies
to
aid
discovery
• Other
research
outputs
(e.g.
datasets)
are
not
directly
included

32. Higher
Educa=on
Response
• SHARE
(SHared
Access
Research
Ecosystem)
• Joint
proposal
(AAU,
ARL,
APLU)
• Relates
to
core
mission
of
academic
libraries
– curate
and
provide
access
to
scholarly
outputs
• Four
components
– No=fica=on
service
– Registry
– Discovery
– Mining
and
Reuse
hZp://www.arl.org/focus-­‐areas/shared-­‐access-­‐research-­‐ecosystem-­‐share

33. SHARE
• Basic
approach
is
to
provide
a
network
of
ins=tu=onal
repositories
– Both
publica=ons
and
data
• Funding
– Sloan
Founda=on
(planning
grant
and
now
no=fica=on
system)
– IMLS
(no=fica=on
system)
• Currently
working
on
the
no=fica=on
system
– Track
“research
release
events”
=
preprints,
ar=cles,
datasets,
figures,
etc

34. • Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services
(HHS)
• Agency
for
Healthcare
Research
and
Quality
(AHRQ)
• HHS
Office
of
the
Assistant
Secretary
for
Preparedness
and
Response
(ASPR)
• HHS
Centers
for
Disease
Control
and
Preven=on
(CDC)
• Department
of
Homeland
Security
(DHS)
• Department
of
Defense
(DoD)
• Department
of
Energy
(DOE)
• Department
of
the
Interior
(DOI)
• Department
of
Transporta=on
(DOT)
• Department
of
Educa=on
(ED)
• Environmental
Protec=on
Agency
(EPA)
• HHS
Food
and
Drug
Administra=on
(FDA)
• Na=onal
Aeronau=cs
and
Space
Administra=on
(NASA)
• HHS
Na=onal
Ins=tutes
of
Health
(NIH)
• Department
of
Commerce
(DOC)
• Na=onal
Ins=tute
of
Standards
and
Technology
(NIST)
• DOC
Na=onal
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administra=on
(NOAA)
• Na=onal
Science
Founda=on
(NSF)
• Office
of
the
Director
of
Na=onal
Intelligence
(ODNI)
• Smithsonian
Ins=tu=on
(SI)
• United
States
Agency
for
Interna=onal
Development
(USAID)
• United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
(USDA)
• United
States
Department
of
Veterans
Affairs
(VA)
The
Agencies

35. Where
are
we
today?
• All
23
agencies
have
submiZed
dran
plans
(some
2nd
drans)
• DOE
was
the
first
to
publicize
their
plan
– Implementa=on
October
2014
• Public
announcements
once
approved
by
OBM
and
OSTP
–
14
in
pipeline
that
have
been
approved

36. Early
Informa=on
on
Agency
Public
Access
Plans

37. DOE
Public
Access
Plan
• Scien=fic
Publica=ons
– Version
of
Record
hosted
by
publisher
– Access
through
DOE
repository
if
no
other
public
available
version
– PAGES:
portal
and
search
interface
for
discoverability
• Scien=fic
Data
in
Digital
Formats
– All
research
proposals
include
a
DMP
– DMPs
will
be
evaluated
– Encourage
deposit
in
community
repositories

38. WHAT’S
NEXT?

39. Possible
Issues
• Will
we
see
clusters
–
number
of
agencies
going
with
NIH
and
PubMed
Central,
some
with
CHORUS,
some
on
their
own
• Key
issues;
what
is
full
reuse
rights?
-­‐
in
the
context
of
data
and
text
mining,
key
aspects
of
DMP
• Different
policies,
different
requirements
for
each
agency

40. Thoughts
• How
would
these
requirements
affect
how
you
do
your
research?
• Would
you
ask
for
funds
for
data
management?
• Would
having
other
research
accessible
enhance
your
research?
Benefit
you?

41. More
Links
• OMB:
Circular
A-­‐110
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a110
• NSF:
Grant
Proposal
Guide
(GPG)
Chapter
II.C.2.j
www.nsf.gov/pubs/policydocs/pappguide/nsf13001/gpg_2.jsp#dmp
• CHORUS
www.chorusaccess.org/
• SHARE
www.arl.org/focus-­‐areas/shared-­‐access-­‐research-­‐ecosystem-­‐share
• DOE
Public
Access
Plan
www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/08/f18/DOE_Public_Access
%20Plan_FINAL.pdf