DOCSLIB.ORG

Open Access in Biomedical Research

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Open Access in Biomedical Research 47 Science Policy Briefing • September 2012 Open Access in Biomedical Research Contents 2 • Foreword 16 • Diverging opinions on how best to achieve 3 • Executive summary open access in biomedical research 3 • Introduction 19 • Recommendations 6 • Open access: where are we today 20 • Conclusions in biomedical research? 21 • Useful websites and abbreviations 12 • The international landscape of open access 22 • List of contributors in biomedical research 13 • The European landscape of open access in biomedical research Foreword Open access publishing has the potential to revolutionise the way in which biomedical scientists publish and access the latest results in their field. There are opportunities to accelerate the use of open access but there are also hurdles to its widespread uptake. Over the past few months, various reports and communications have been published on the topic of open access. These include the Finch Group report on 18 June 2012, the Publishing and the Ecology of European Research (PEER) final report on 19 June 2012, the European Research Council (ERC) announcement of its new open access policy on 13 July 2012, and the European Commission’s launch of a communication and recommendations to Member States ‘Towards better access to scientific information’ on 17 July 2012. On the same day, Science Europe reaffirmed its commitment to strengthening the European Research © Clover / SuperStock Area and recognised open access as a priority area in which a common policy and action plan will be developed and implemented. This intensive period shows the timeliness of Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT), our publication. ES; the Spanish National Health Institute Carlos III (ISCIII), In recognition of the importance of open access to ES; the Wellcome Trust, UK; the Academy of Sciences, the biomedical sciences, the European Medical Research CZ; the National Institute of Health (ISS), IT; and the Councils (EMRC) of the European Science Foundation Foundation for National Scientific Computing (FCCN), PT. (ESF), at the instigation of its Core Group member Professor Other participants included open access experts from Josef Syka of the Czech Science Foundation and the the Research Information Network (RIN), the Scholarly Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (GAČR and Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) AVČR), launched an activity to investigate what, if any, steps Europe, the Association of European Research Libraries EMRC could usefully take to improve the open access (LIBER), the European Association for Cancer Research landscape in the biomedical field across Europe. EMRC (EACR) and Knowledge Exchange, as well as experts task force meetings held in September and November from several European infrastructures, including the 2011 led to the identification of a number of issues and the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) and drafting of a preliminary document. These issues included the European Molecular Biology Laboratory - European the coexistence between open access and the traditional Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI). The many valuable business model of scientific publishers (including scientific inputs from participants made it clear that the current model learned societies), the recognised challenges associated for accessing biomedical research is far from ideal and that with researchers understanding the concept of open all research stakeholders (funding agencies, publishers, access and depositing their research in local repositories, research performing institutions, research libraries and the recognition of PubMed Central (PMC) as a model of learned societies) need to work together to shift to an open disciplinary repository in the biomedical field, and the access model in the field. However, a number of potential desirability and/or feasibility of expanding UK PubMed hurdles, discussed in this briefing, remain to be overcome. Central (UKPMC) to include more European biomedical Finally, we would like to thank the Science Policy Briefing research outputs. While this report was in preparation, Chair, Professor Syka, the task force, the expert group the ERC joined UKPMC and funders agreed to rename it members and the ESF-EMRC staff – all listed at the end of ‘Europe PMC’ as of November 2012. the publication – for their excellent work. An expert group meeting took place in Madrid on 21-22 March 2012 hosted by the Spanish ‘Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas’ (CSIC), one of the Professor Liselotte Højgaard task force member organisations. Participants included EMRC Chair publishers (Elsevier, BioMed Central, Public Library of Science), the European Commission, nominated experts Professor Pär Omling from 12 ESF Member Organisations (including the task ESF President and Science Europe Vice-President force members) and other research performing/funding organisations, foundations or charities, including the 2 Open Access in Biomedical Research | September 2012 Executive summary Introduction This Science Policy Briefing The Internet and technological developments that aims to accelerate the adop- have arisen from it in recent years have the potential tion of open access to research to radically change science publishing and maximise articles in the biomedical sci- the impact of research in a way that was not possible ences. Open access refers to or even envisioned when publishing was a subscription- the free availability on the and paper-based process. We envisage a full open access public Internet of scholarly future – one in which all published research generated articles published in an elec- by science researchers in the European Union (EU) is tronic format, permitting any immediately available online in human and machine user to read and re-use the readable form, published under a license that allows content provided only that the Hippocratic Oath unlimited re-use while ensuring authors’ rights of attri- author is properly acknowl- “I swear […] to give a share of bution, and with secure automatic archiving in publicly precepts and oral instruction edged and cited. We consider and all the other learning to my run databases. open access to be crucial for sons and to the sons of him The concept is not new: the 2002 Budapest Open who has instructed me” the free flow of information Access Initiative1 and the Bethesda Statement on Open between researchers and within society as a whole, and Access Publishing2, which was agreed on in 2003 by the digital revolution of recent years provides an oppor- the biomedical research community, discussed how to tunity that has not yet been fully realised to transform provide open access to primary scientific literature as access to scholarly publications. To achieve this goal this rapidly as possible. The Berlin Declaration on Open briefing makes a number of recommendations: Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities 1. There is a moral imperative for open access: research was also published in 20033. A definition is provided papers should be made freely available to all to read, in Box 1. use and re-use, with appropriate acknowledge- A successful model for the future will maximise the ment, in order to maximise the value of biomedical value of research investments by: research, build on the body of knowledge, accelerate • increasing access to the results of research undertaken the process of discovery and improve human health. in Europe, preferably so that everyone in the world has 2. Individual agencies must work together to raise free access at the point of use to all the published out- awareness of the moral imperative for open access: puts of research; agencies and organisations that fund and perform • increasing access in Europe to the global outputs of research, libraries, publishers and researchers must research; work in concert to raise awareness of the moral • ensuring that the published outputs of research are imperative for open access publishing. National, subject to effective quality assurance through peer European and international partnerships are the review; basis for the successful achievement of open access • ensuring that the scholarly communication system to research outputs. Specific actions that different develops in a sustainable way and operates cost-effec- agencies need to undertake in order to move towards tively; and this goal are outlined in this briefing. • ensuring the long-term preservation of the records of 3. All research stakeholders should work together to science. support the extension of Europe PubMed Central into a Europe-wide PubMed Central: in order to The objective of this ESF-EMRC Science Policy Briefing facilitate discoveries and innovation in biomedical is to accelerate the adoption of open access in order to research, research stakeholders should collaborate to guarantee equitable access to European biomedical establish a Europe-wide repository in biomedicine as research outputs worldwide. In this document, the term a partner site to the US equivalent PubMed Central. ‘research outputs’ refers to research publications (journal The recently rebranded Europe PubMed Central articles and conference papers4), mostly generated from represents a valuable means to achieving this goal, provided that the diversity of European partner man- 1. www.soros.org/openaccess/read 2. www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm dates and policies can be integrated. 3. http://oa.mpg.de/lang/en-uk/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/ 4. Research Information Network (RIN), Publishing Research Open
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Analysis of Comments and Implementation of the Nih Public Access Policy 2008
    ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NIH PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY 2008 Executive Summary BACKGROUND The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy requires investigators funded by the NIH to submit, or have submitted for them, an electronic version of their final, peer‐reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to the National Library of Medicine’s digital archive, PubMed Central, to be posted publicly within 12 months after the official date of publication. Congress required the NIH to implement this funding limitation in Division G, Title II, Section 218 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 (“Section 218”). The Policy is intended to advance science, provide public access to the published results of NIH‐funded research, and improve human health. The current Public Access Policy is the culmination of years of effort and community interaction. Prior to passage of Section 218, NIH undertook extraordinary public outreach concerning the issue of public access to the published results of NIH‐funded research. These outreach efforts included a review of over six thousand public comments and the establishment of an independent advisory group to review NIH’s implementation of a voluntary Public Access Policy. Additionally, as part of the process to implement Section 218 in a transparent and participatory manner, NIH formally sought public input through an open meeting and a Request for Information (RFI) seeking public comment. This open meeting occurred on March 20, 2008 and was designed to ensure that a discussion of stakeholder issues could occur. The feedback from the open meeting helped define questions for an RFI, which was published on the NIH web site on March 28, 2008 and in the Federal Register on March 31, 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft 3 August 2010 Jorge L
    DATA SHARING, LATENCY VARIABLES AND THE SCIENCE COMMONS Draft 3 August 2010 Jorge L. Contreras* ABSTRACT Over the past decade, the rapidly decreasing cost of computer storage and the increasing prevalence of high-speed Internet connections have fundamentally altered the way in which scientific research is conducted. Led by scientists in disciplines such as genomics, the rapid sharing of data sets and cross-institutional collaboration promise to increase scientific efficiency and output dramatically. As a result, an increasing number of public “commons” of scientific data are being created: aggregations intended to be used and accessed by researchers worldwide. Yet, the sharing of scientific data presents legal, ethical and practical challenges that must be overcome before such science commons can be deployed and utilized to their greatest potential. These challenges include determining the appropriate level of intellectual property protection for data within the commons, balancing the publication priority interests of data generators and data users, ensuring a viable economic model for publishers and other intermediaries and achieving the public benefits sought by funding agencies. In this paper, I analyze scientific data sharing within the framework offered by organizational theory, expanding existing analytical approaches with a new tool termed “latency analysis.” I place latency analysis within the larger Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, as well as more recent variations of that framework. Latency analysis exploits two key variables that characterize all information commons: the rate at which information enters the commons (its knowledge latency) and the rate at which the knowledge in the commons becomes be freely utilizable (its rights latency).
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Scholarly Communication: US Efforts to Bring Warring Factions to Common Purpose in Support of Scholarship
    Information Services & Use 33 (2013) 27–36 27 DOI 10.3233/ISU-130689 IOS Press The future of scholarly communication: US efforts to bring warring factions to common purpose in support of scholarship John Vaughn ∗ Association of American Universities, Washington, DC, USA Abstract. Key stakeholders in scholarly communication have been at odds over the purpose, mission and business models of publishing. This piece reviews developments in the United States but with a particular focus on efforts at reestablishing common purpose, such as (1) the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable created in June 2009 by the Chairman of Science and Technology Committee of the US House of Representatives; (2) the Task force of the Association of American Universities and Association of Research Libraries established in 2012 to focus on university presses, scholarly journals and institutional repositories; and (3) the Office of Science and Technology Policy Memorandum of February 22, 2013 on Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research. Keywords: Open Access, Public Access, scholarly publishing 1. Towards collaborative action Anyone interested in scholarly communication probably has noted the parallels in the conduct and publication of research, such as • The importance of quality, e.g. the peer review of research grant proposals and of papers submitted to publication; • The increased internationalization, e.g. scholars collaborate in international networks and journals recruit editors and reviewers globally; and • The increased volume, i.e. the rapid global expansion of research drives the growth of published outcomes. In the United States, for scholars, libraries and institutions the premise is that “dissemination of knowl- edge is as important to the university mission as its production” [4].
    [Show full text]
  • Enabling Research Through Open Access Policies
    THE SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING & ACADEMIC RESOURCES COALITION 21 Dupont Circle NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 296-2296 www.arl.org/sparc Enabling Research through Open Access Policies Heather Joseph, Executive Director SPARC Washington, DC USA The Issue • Funders invest in research with the expectation that it will result in improvements to the public good. • They increasingly recognize that dissemination is an essential component of the research process. • Research is cumulative - it advances through sharing results. The value of an investment in research is maximized only through use of its findings. www.arl.org/sparc 2 The Issue • Too often, the research results (either publicly or privately funded ) are simply not widely available to the community of potential users. • Internet provides new opportunity to bring information broader audience at virtually no marginal cost, and use it new, innovative ways. Result: Call for new framework designed to allow research results to be more easily accessed and used. www.arl.org/sparc 3 Without Open Access But Article Isn’t Available….. Usability is Key “By open access, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full text of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software or use them for any other lawful purpose…” - The Budapest Open Access Initiative www.arl.org/sparc 6 Greater Access is a Policy Concern “Governments would boost innovation and get a better return on their investment in publicly funded research by making research findings more widely available….
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Publishing
    Open Access The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Suber, Peter. 2012. Open access. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. [Updates and Supplements: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/ Open_Access_(the_book)] Published Version http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10752204 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA OPEN ACCESS The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series Information and the Modern Corporation, James Cortada Intellectual Property Strategy, John Palfrey Open Access, Peter Suber OPEN ACCESS PETER SUBER TheMIT Press | Cambridge, Massachusetts | London, England © 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology This work is licensed under the Creative Commons licenses noted below. To view a copy of these licenses, visit creativecommons.org. Other than as provided by these licenses, no part of this book may be reproduced, transmitted, or displayed by any electronic or mechanical means without permission from the publisher or as permitted by law. This book incorporates certain materials previously published under a CC-BY license and copyright in those underlying materials is owned by SPARC. Those materials remain under the CC-BY license. Effective June 15, 2013, this book will be subject to a CC-BY-NC license. MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity discounts for business or sales promotional use.
    [Show full text]
  • Increasing Public and Fair Access to Scientific Findings
    Increasing Public and Fair Access to Scientific Findings Siyuan (Grace) Zhou University of Missouri-Columbia Abstract Public and fair access to scientific findings is an increasingly important movement for scientists, researchers, and knowledge workers who can put the findings to good use and build upon the scholarly research to innovate. Choosing the location of the digital repository to house the research articles is an essential part of developing an open access policy for federal agencies. Where the journal articles would reside has been a controversial issue between publishers and Open Access advocates. This poster presents the background of the FASTR Act and the analysis of the scientific data sharing issues among the U.S. government agencies and academic publishers. It also proposes and demonstrates a centralized government-funded repository leading to a faster and wider sharing of scientific research, which enables the continued advance of science, stimulates innovation stimulation, and grows the overall economy. Keywords: FASTR; Open Access; Open Policy; Data Sharing doi: 10.9776/16456 Copyright: Copyright is held by the authors. Contact: [email protected] Introduction Public and fair access to scientific findings is an increasingly important movement for scientists, researchers, and knowledge workers who can put the findings to good use and build upon the scholarly research to innovate. To increase access to the results of federally funded scientific research, the U.S. legislation has been committed to proposition that taxpayers deserve easy access to the results of scientific findings their text dollars have paid for. John Cornyn, the senator for Texas, and Ron Wyden for Oregon introduced the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR) in February 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Pirated Economics
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Pirated Economics Babutsidze, Zakaria SKEMA Business School, OFCE Sciences Po 2 June 2016 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/72621/ MPRA Paper No. 72621, posted 20 Jul 2016 07:48 UTC Pirated Economics Zakaria Babutsidze SKEMA Business School & OFCE Sciences Po Abstract: I argue that the impact of piracy engines for scholarly content on science depends on the nature of the research. Social sciences are more likely to reap benefits from such engines without inflicting much damage to r journal publishe revenues. To validate , the claim I examine the data from illegal downloads of economics content from Sci-­‐Hub over -­‐ five month period. I conclude that: (a) the extent of piracy in economics is not pervasive; (b) as downloads are coming mostly -­‐ from under developed countries; (c) users pirate even the content freely available online. As a result, publishers are not losing much revenues, while the exposure to generated knowledge is being extended. JEL Code: A1 1. Introduction The idea of open science has challenged -­‐ many stake holders in science and publishing for years. Many have argued that pricing practices by mainstream scientific journal publishers have built walls around the knowledge precluding a large part of researchers and public from accessing public good. Some have even compared this “paywall” to the wall dividing east and west Berlin during the cold war (Oxenham 2016). This has become particularly problematic when it comes to the knowledge generated by publicly funded research. Some reckon that eliminating scientific journal publishing from the knowledge creation process will save $9.8bln of public money annually (Brembs 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Do Authors Deposit on Time? Tracking Open Access Policy Compliance
    Do Authors Deposit on Time? Tracking Open Access Policy Compliance Drahomira Herrmannova Nancy Pontika Petr Knoth Knowledge Media Institute Knowledge Media Institute Knowledge Media Institute The Open University The Open University The Open University Milton Keynes, United Kingdom Milton Keynes, United Kingdom Milton Keynes, United Kingdom orcid.org/0000-0002-2730-1546 orcid.org/0000-0002-2091-0402 orcid.org/0000-0003-1161-7359 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT vs. post-print) should be made openly accessible [17]. Arguably Recent years have seen fast growth in the number of policies man- one of the most significant OA policies, the UK Research Excel- 3 dating Open Access (OA) to research outputs. We conduct a large- lence Framework (REF) 2021 Open Access Policy , was introduced scale analysis of over 800 thousand papers from repositories around in the UK in March 2014 [8]. The significance of this policy lies the world published over a period of 5 years to investigate: a) if the in two aspects: 1) the requirement to make research outputs OA time lag between the date of publication and date of deposit in a is linked to performance review, creating a strong incentive for repository can be effectively tracked across thousands of reposito- compliance [25, 29, 30], and 2) it affects over 5% of global research 4 ries globally, and b) if introducing deposit deadlines is associated outputs . Under this policy, only compliant research outputs will with a reduction of time from acceptance to public availability of be evaluated in the national Research Excellence Framework.
    [Show full text]
  • Discipline-Specific Open Access Publishing
    F1000Research 2020, 7:1925 Last updated: 24 APR 2020 RESEARCH ARTICLE Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations] Anna Severin 1,2, Matthias Egger1,2, Martin Paul Eve 3, Daniel Hürlimann 4 1Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (ISPM), University of Bern, Bern, 3012, Switzerland 2Swiss National Science Foundation, Bern, 3001, Switzerland 3Department of English and Humanities, Birkbeck University of London, London, WC1H 0PD, UK 4Research Center for Information Law, University of St.Gallen, St.Gallen, 9000, Switzerland First published: 11 Dec 2018, 7:1925 Open Peer Review v2 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17328.1 Latest published: 26 Mar 2020, 7:1925 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.17328.2 Reviewer Status Abstract Invited Reviewers Background: Many of the discussions surrounding Open Access (OA) 1 2 3 revolve around how it affects publishing practices across different academic disciplines. It was a long-held view that it would be only a matter version 2 of time before all disciplines fully and relatively homogeneously (revision) report report implemented OA. Recent large-scale bibliometric studies show, however, 26 Mar 2020 that the uptake of OA differs substantially across disciplines. We aimed to answer two questions: First, how do different disciplines adopt and shape OA publishing practices? Second, what discipline-specific barriers to and version 1 potentials for OA can be identified? 11 Dec 2018 report report report Methods: In a first step, we identified and synthesized relevant bibliometric studies that assessed OA prevalence and publishing patterns across disciplines.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access, Predatory Publishing and Peer-Review
    Fernandez-Llimos F. Open access, predatory publishing and peer-review. Pharmacy Practice 2014 Jan- Mar;12(1):427. Editorial Open access, predatory publishing and peer-review Fernando FERNANDEZ-LLIMOS. Keywords: Publishing; Access to Information; Peer Review, Research; Codes of Ethics; Cooperative Behavior *In recent years, scholarly publishing faced a new paradigm regarding the accessibility: the open access movement. “If an article is "Open Access" it means that it can be freely accessed by anyone in the world using an internet connection”.1 The Budapest Open Access Initiative states: “By "open access" to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself”.2 Some researchers may have never been concerned about this topic. It obviously means that they are affiliated with a rich institution from a rich country. There are few things more discouraging for a researcher than performing a literature search, retrieving a list of potentially interesting articles, and not being able to access many of them because one’s library does not subscribe those journals. And this lack of access will increase, even in major Universities from rich countries3, where the average cost of subscription reached 12,000 USD per faculty member more than 10 years ago.4 Administrations are regulating the access to the results of publicly funded researches by using these open access systems: initially, through a voluntary Public Access Policy and then making it mandatory.5 The European Union slowly followed a similar policy, initiated at the Seventh Framework Programme.6 Many other institutions and countries are following this movement.7 PubMed Central is a free archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Compliance with Open Access Policies
    Monitoring Compliance with Open Access policies Monitoring Compliance with Open Access policies Author: Mafalda Picarra, Jisc Reviewers: Alma Swan, EOS December 2015 Introduction In the last few years, academic communities have seen an increase in the number of Open Access (OA) policies being adopted at the institutional and funder levels. In parallel to policy implementation, institutions and funders have also been engaged in developing mechanisms to monitor academics and researchers compliance with the existing OA policies. This study highlights a few of the cases where compliance is being effectively monitored by institutions and funders. In the first section, Open Access is briefly overviewed and the rationale for monitoring OA policy compliance is explained. The second section looks at best practices in monitoring policy compliance with OA policies by funders and institutions. The case studies reflect on compliance with the UK Funding Councils and the USA National Institutes of Health OA policies. The third section makes recommendations on what processes and procedures universities and funders should adopt to monitor compliance with their OA policies. The final section recapitulates some of the key ideas related to monitoring policy compliance. I. Open Access and monitoring compliance Open Access policies: An overview OA policies have been adopted by universities, research institutions and funders from as early as 2003. The Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies (ROARMAP) currently records the existence of 738 OA policies across the world, of which 440 have been implemented by universities (347) and funders (53) in Europe. OA policies provide information on the set of criteria that authors are required or encouraged to comply with in order to make their research outputs available on Open Access.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Publishing and Citation Archives: Background and Controversy
    Order Code RL33023 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Open Access Publishing and Citation Archives: Background and Controversy Updated June 22, 2006 Genevieve J. Knezo Specialist in Science and Technology Resources, Science, and Industry Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Open Access Publishing and Citation Archives: Background and Controversy Summary Controversies about open access publishing and archiving confront issues of copyright and governmental competition with the private sector. Traditional publishers typically charge subscriber fees that fund some of the costs of publishing and distributing hard-copy and/or online journals. In contrast, most open access systems charge authors publication fees and give readers free online access to the full text of published and non-published articles or to bibliographic citations. Supporters of the open access “movement” cite objections to the rising costs of journal subscriptions; peer reviewers’ reluctance to do free reviews for journals rapidly escalating in price; and the belief that scientific collaboration, advancement, and utilization will be hastened by free access to citations and articles. Traditional subscriber-pays commercial publishers and some scholarly associations object to most open access publishing, saying it may duplicate what publishers sell, weaken the publishing industry, and erode profits. Some critics seek to limit free government- run repositories to include only articles and citations from federally sponsored research. Some oppose open access publishers’ requirements that charge authors fees in the thousands of dollars to pay the costs of publishing articles. Others say that foundation donations that sustain some open access activities are unreliable. In 2004, congressional report language mandated that authors funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) voluntarily submit within 12 months of publication, copies of their journal articles to NIH’s free access database, PubMed Central.
    [Show full text]