It’s Open Access: No Fooling ANCHASL, April Pat Thibodeau Duke University Medical Center Library

All About Open Access Brief history / background Definitions / principles Reactions of traditional publishers New publishing model? Viewpoints and concerns Evolving models of open access NIH proposal

The Open Access Movement Possible roles / activities for librarians Directory of Open Access Journals BioMed Central Public Library of Science PubMed Central

Disclaimer / Disclosure Member – Reed Elsevier North American Advisory Board Receive compensation for travel to board meetings Honorarium donated directly to MLA Opinions expressed today do not reflect Reed Elsevier

How Did We Get to OA Goal publishers and authors – immediate wide- spread dissemination of research results Increase in prices – decrease in access Ginsparg – Los Alamos – arXiv - early 1990’s SPARC 1998 – Declarations of Independence –Alternative publishing models 1999 Open Archives Initiative

Medical Community and OA 1991 Preprints – Behavioral & Brain Research 1992 Genbank 1993 NCBI Entrez Network 1994 Human Genome Project 1996 Journal of Clinical Investigation 1997 PubMed 1999 BioMed Central free access 1999 E-Biomed proposed – Dr. Varmus 2000 PubMed Central 2003 Public Library of Science – 1 st journal

Defining OA – The Principles Budapest Open Access Initiative Meeting 2001, principles 2002 International in scope Two basic strategies –Self-archiving by the author –Launching of new journals Open Society Institute founded to support new approaches

BOAI Strategies Author self-archiving – Preprints, final versions, and corrections – Repositories searchable - Open Archives Initiative standards New Journals – Wide dissemination of information – No copyright restrictions, use copyright to ensure permanent access – No subscription or access fees – other funding sources – As traditional publishers fail, more funding available

Bethesda Principles Bethesda, MD Howard Hughes Institute Generate discussion among biomed community Goal – open access to primary scientific literature Actions to promote rapid and efficient transition to OA

Bethesda’s 2 Criteria Free access without restrictions –Acknowledging author/copyright holder –Perpetual access/permissions Immediate deposit of electronic copy –Repository maintained by academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, reputable group –Enable open access, unrestricted distribution, interoperability, and long-term archiving

Publishers’ Reactions Concern about fate of peer review system Skepticism about sustainability –Funding models –Acceptance by STM community –Impact factors Anxiety over own survival –Fear of loss of subscriptions –Challenge of changing traditional publishing model

Washington DC Principles for Free Access to Science 2004 issued by 48 Non-profit publishers Maintain and enhance the independence, rigor, trust, and visibility that have established scholarly journals as reliable filters of information emanating from clinical and laboratory research Reinvest revenues in direct support of science worldwide

Support of Open Access Select articles immediately accessible Full text available immediately or after months of publication, depending on business needs Free to scientists in many low-income nations Online linking between journals Content indexed by major search engines

Additional Statements Commitment to long-term preservation Work with authors/editors on development of robust online tools Fees should NOT be solely borne by authors and their funding institutions Free society should support several publishing models

OA – A Model for Access Not a Business Model Author Pays Institution pays site license Funding agency pays Combinations of the above

Which Flavor of OA Today? Preprints, Abstracts, Table of Contents Full text immediately free (PLoS, BMC) Free selected articles (NEJM) Free after 6, 12, 24 months Free to low income/developing countries Free if author pays fee (Blackwell, PNAS) Authors post their version on local repository (Elsevier) Combination of above

NIH – The Latest Flavor Information Access Alliance on mergers MLA/AASHL Statement on Public Access to Health Information Library Associations meeting with legislators Language added to NLM reauthorization –An individual librarian and her influence

The Sabo Bill Any Federal department or agency that enters into a funding agreement with any person for the performance of scientific research substantially funded by the Federal government shall include in the agreement a provision that states that copyright protection under this title is NOT available for any work produced pursuant to such research under the agreement.

Zerhouni and NIH New Leader – interested in improving access Creating NIH portfolio of research August 2004 – Stakeholders meetings –Consumers, scientists, publishers, librarians September 2004 – Draft proposal SPARC, ARL, Open Access Working Group, MLA, SLA Over 6,000 comments

NIH Public Access Policy A compromise plan Encouraged to deposit within 12 months –Author determines when Optional, not a requirement –No penalty, tracking Deposit author’s version of manuscript –Publishers encouraged to replace with published version

Challenges for Implementation Negotiating with the publisher Author must alter contracts/agreements Wording from NIH –… author retains the right to provide a copy of the final manuscript to NIH upon acceptance…for public archiving in PubMed Central as soon as possible after publication… ARL – Author’s Addendum

Additional Challenges Author’s version of final manuscript –Initial manuscript PLUS all edits –Publishers do not usually provide digital version –Time and support to edit the manuscript Archiving articles not a mind-set Publishers willingness to provide copy?

Future of NIH Policy? Advisory Board – future policy changes Responses to policy from librarians, publishers Raised visibility of issue to national, global level American taxpayers/public involved Model for other government agencies New roles in advocacy and education for libraries and librarians

No fooling! Open Access is here to stay! Over 10 years of development Established and accepted principles Attention from traditional publishers Evolving financial models Innovative approaches/flavors to open access Increased awareness among stakeholders NIH policy a major force

Thank you! Questions? Comments!