DOCSLIB.ORG

Who Will Influence the Success of Preprints in Biology and to What End?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Who Will Influence the Success of Preprints in Biology and to What End? Who will influence the success of preprints in biology and to what end? Moderator: Naomi Penfold, Associate Director These slides: bit.ly/preprints-FORCE2019 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3515895 All slides are CC-BY ASAPbio or the panellist (see slide notes) 4:00pm | Intro 4:10pm | Panel perspectives 4:30pm | Discussion (including Qs & thoughts from you!) 4:50pm | Final reflections My background & biases Associate Director PhD, University of Cambridge ●Community engagement ●Preprints & peer review: research, ●Clinical Biochemistry (Neuroscience) campaigns, outreach & information ●ECR issues ●Science policy 2016 Other commitments: ● Dryad Board of 2012 2018 Directors (2019-) ● PREreview advisory eLife committee (2018-) Events Coordinator & Innovation Officer ● CSCCE Community The information I am Engagement Fellow ●Science publishing presenting comes from 2019 (#CEFP2019) North American & ●Open science & reproducibility European perspectives ●ECR issues ●Product and technology innovation ●Events and community building Who will influence the success of preprints in biology and to what end? Dario Taraborelli Theo Bloom Amye Kenall Humberto Debat @ReaderMeter @TheoBloom @AmyeKenall @humbertodebat Science program Executive editor, Editorial director for Researcher, officer (open science), The BMJ & medicine and life National Institute of Chan Zuckerberg Co-founder, sciences journals, Agricultural Technology Initiative medRxiv SpringerNature (Argentina) ASAPbio is a biologist-driven non-profit working to make life sciences communication faster & more transparent through convening, community building, resource development and advocacy for preprints and published peer review Started this off! We are… ASAPbio board Naomi Penfold, Associate Director Ron Vale (Founder & President) [email protected] @npscience Cynthia Wolberger (Vice President) Jaime Fraser (Secretary & Treasurer) Jessica Polka, Executive Director Prachee Avasthi [email protected] @jessicapolka Phil Bourne Daniel Colón-Ramos Victoria Yan, Peer Review Registry Tony Hyman (#ReimagineReview) Coordinator Heather Joseph [email protected] @victoriayan_ Jennifer Lin Kristen Ratan Harold Varmus Sign up to receive news asapbio.org/newsletter Dick Wilder (non-voting) Follow us @ASAPbio_ Join the conversation #ASAPbio With thanks to our funders and advisors Preprints are complete scientific manuscripts shared openly online before journal-organized peer review. “These people “2-3 (unnamed) did this at this community members time” have read it and think it’s ok” “Here’s what we “A journal editor did, please read!” thinks this is something you’d be interested in” “Evaluators recognise this journal name as a mark of quality” The research Submitted Peer review Journal process manuscript article “These people “A journal editor did this at this “# community thinks this is time” members (named and unnamed) have read it something you’d “Here’s what we be interested in” and have shared what “Evaluators did, please read!” they think about it” recognise this journal name as a mark of quality” The research Submitted Peer review Journal process manuscript article = = = = open data, preprint transparent open access Channels open protocols, peer review article for distinct open notebook audiences science Individual gain Collective gain What is your vision for success for preprints in biology? Who will drive this success? Panellist 1: Dario Support science and technology Accelerate biomedical science by that will make it possible to developing new tools and cure, prevent, or manage all technologies and supporting open, diseases by the end of the century collaborative models of research 81 years 10 years Preprints at CZI 1. Funding: 2. Technology: making preprints discoverable as 1st class citizens 3. Policy: mandating preprints for all our grantees 4. User Research: understanding attitudes and barriers to adoption Preprints: challenges and opportunities ● Strong organic growth in the life sciences ● Only 2.6% of the biomedical literature Preprints: challenges and opportunities 1. Preprints as the staging area for all research 2. Preprints as a vehicle for open science practices Panellist 2: Theo Competing interests ● I’m Executive Editor of The BMJ. It is published by BMJ, a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association. ● BMJ (the company) receives 8.7% of revenues from drug & device companies through advertising, reprint sales, & sponsorship. For The BMJ it’s 12%. The BMJ is an open access research journal that charges article-processing fees for Research Articles. ● I chair the Scientific Advisory Board of Europe PubMed Central. ● I am a founder of medRχiv clinical preprint server ● I am European Coordinator for the Peer Review Congress. ● I am on the Board of AIP Publishing medRχiv: a three-way (publisher-neutral) collaboration Why should anyone post a preprint? What we say What they say (~4200, bioRχiv) Most submissions before (37%) or at the ● Speed up science same time (41%) as submission to journal ● Allow pre-publication peer review and feedback, making ‘better’ articles ● Give authors precedence ● Freely available (not always ‘open’) ● Surface data that may not survive review ● Risk of incorrect information or conclusions that could harm individual or population health Risk mitigation Is it nonsense? Is it non-science? Is it a paper? Is it research? Is it plagiarized? Is it a health threat? Is there a benefit to sharing now vs. after peer review? Panellist 3: Amye Who am I (incl. competing interests) -Editorial Director of Medicine and Life Sciences at Springer Nature, mainly working with BMC branded journals and in open access -Seconded part-time to Research Square to develop In Review, cross-publisher integrated preprint model -Springer Nature has a minority share in Research Square -Treasurer of FORCE11 Results not replicated Questions over the conclusion emerged as soon as the paper was published. Sean Harrison, an epidemiologist at the University of Bristol, UK, attempted to replicate the findings that night….. Food for thought - one small change? ● Opt in as part of submission process. ● 2% vs 35% opt in rate ● 89% of authors say it improved their publication experience Considerations for driving success of preprints ● The proposition of preprints is clear to most, but misconceptions/fears exist. ● How can preprints better speak to career advancement for researchers? ● Submitting yet another research object (article, data, preprint, code) might hinder uptake. ● How are preprints promoted? Found? Especially when China (a key market) doesn’t have access to Twitter. ● Long-term sustainability of preprints in the biological and medical sciences. ● Alignment on minimum standards for posting preprints ● As with all ROs, how can preprints be linked up to their related ROs, especially the peer-reviewed Version of Record Panellist 4: Humberto 20 44 2000 31 12 21 50 55 640 200 14000 410 0.62 57 42 60 85 37 34 1.5 550 52 3000 6.5 Discussion Inspired by Eve Tuck @tuckeve: https://twitter.com/tuckeve/status/ Before you ask... 1141501422611128320 3 minutes to share your thoughts with your neighbour. Let your voice be heard! Before contributing a question or thought to the room, please consider: 1. Is it a question or statement that elevates or stimulates discussion? 2. If you could only ask or say one thing in this room, is this it? 3. Who is most important for you to listen to in this room? Who could you learn most from? Are you asking a question that helps them share? 4. Are you asking the responder to do work that you could do yourself? 5. Is it a question that is productive for all of us to hear right now? Reflections TRiP mechanism Consider what your vision is, who shares this & what power you have to pursue this. Keep talking! Sign up to receive news asapbio.org/newsletter Follow us on Twitter @ASAPbio_ Join the conversation #ASAPbio.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MICHAEL SWETNAM ALAN MOGHISSI, Phd ALAN LESHNER, Phd HEATHER JOSEPH January 22, 2014
    SEMINAR REPORT The Economics of Open Access: International and Domestic Implications Featured Speakers MICHAEL SWETNAM ALAN MOGHISSI, PhD ALAN LESHNER, PhD HEATHER JOSEPH January 22, 2014 C IN MA ST O IT T B U O T POTOMAC INSTITUTE FOR P E POLICY STUDIES F O R G 901 N. Stuart St. Suite 200 S P IE O D Arlington, VA 22203 LICY STU The Potomac Institute for Policy Studies gratefully acknowledge par- ticipants’ contributions included in this event report. Please note that the transcript has been edited for publication. The Institute and Potomac Institute Press cannot assume responsibil- ity for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use; the view and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies or Potomac Institute Press. Copyright © 2014 Potomac Institute for Policy Studies 901 N. Stuart St, Suite 200 Arlington, VA, 22203 www.potomacinstitute.org Telephone: 703.525.0770; Fax: 703.525.0299 Email: [email protected] POTOMAC INSTITUTE PRESS TABLE OF CONTENTS CReST 4 AGENDA 5 OPENING REMARKS 6 INTRODUCTION 8 PANEL TRANSCRIPT 9 OPEN DISCUSSION TRANSCRIPT 19 SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES 40 POTOMAC INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES 45 CReST The Center for Revolutionary Scientific Thought (CReST) at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies brings together individuals from a variety of backgrounds to enable a comprehensive outlook of science and technology (S&T) futures from academic and policy perspectives. CReST intends to: 1) develop new ideas, 2) formulate strategies on how to achieve revolutionary gains in S&T, 3) provide a discussion forum to address political, ethical, legal and social issues related to S&T, and 4) inform the public and policymakers about the most pressing issues and concerns regarding the future of S&T.
    [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]
  • Preprints in the Spotlight: Establishing Best Practices, Building Trust 1
    ISSUE BRIEF Preprints in the Spotlight Establishing Best Practices, Building Trust May 27, 2020 Oya Y. Rieger Ithaka S+R provides research and Copyright 2020 ITHAKA. This work is strategic guidance to help the licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 academic and cultural communities International License. To view a copy of serve the public good and navigate the license, please see http://creative- economic, demographic, and commons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. technological change. Ithaka S+R is ITHAKA is interested in disseminating part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit this brief as widely as possible. Please organization that works to advance contact us with any questions about using and preserve knowledge and to the report: [email protected]. improve teaching and learning through the use of digital technologies. Artstor, JSTOR, and Portico are also part of ITHAKA. PREPRINTS IN THE SPOTLIGHT: ESTABLISHING BEST PRACTICES, BUILDING TRUST 1 Introduction Preprints have been getting a lot of attention recently. The COVID-19 pandemic—the first major health crisis since medical and biomedical preprints have become widely available online—has further underscored the importance of speedy dissemination of research outcomes. Preprints allow researchers to share results with speed, but raise questions about accuracy, misconduct, and our reliance on the “self-correcting” nature of the scientific enterprise. As scientists and health care professionals, as well as the general public, look for information about the pandemic, preprint services are growing in importance. So too are the policy decisions preprint platform leaders make. Even before the crisis struck, it was clear that 2020 would be a year of reckoning for preprints.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2.5% Commitment
    The 2.5% Commitment David W. Lewis Dean of the IUPUI University Library [email protected] September 11, 2017 © 2017 David W. Lewis. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license The Commitment: Every academic library should commit to contribute 2.5% of its total budget to support the common infrastructure needed to create the open scholarly commons. Academic Libraries and the Open Scholarly Commons In the end, libraries can point out the fact that their future role actually points in in two, apparently opposite, yet deeply complementary directions: on the one hand, they plunge deeply into the local production scenes since they aim at systematically sweeping, storing, preserving, and curating all that is produced in their hosting institution; at the same time, the libraries, with their sister institutions, are involved in the task of ensuring a vibrant knowledge-nurturing life for their documents: they will circulate, be discoverable, be interoperable, be evaluated, etc. With the first function, each library ensures its safe and strong function within its host institution; with the second function, the libraries connect to bring the knowledge infrastructure that we all really need. — Jean-Claude Guédon1 In the Internet era information will be free, the only question remaining is who pays for that freedom. — Kalev Leetaru2 The two quotes define one of the primary challenges academic libraries currently face. Jean- Claude Guédon in his Budapest Open Access Initiative 15 Statement nicely describes the world that needs to be created, what Locan Dempsey nicely framed as moving form an “Outside-In” strategy to an “Inside-Out” strategy.3 What we, as the academic library community, want to create is an open scholarly commons that will be digital and distributed with colleges, universities, cultural heritage organizations, scholarly societies, foundations, and governments hosting the content created, funded, or of interest to them in repositories that would make the content openly available to the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Superresolution Microscopy of the Β-Carboxysome Reveals a Homogeneous Matrix
    Superresolution microscopy of the β-carboxysome reveals a homogeneous matrix The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Niederhuber, Matthew J., Talley J. Lambert, Clarence Yapp, Pamela A. Silver, and Jessica K. Polka. 2017. “Superresolution microscopy of the β-carboxysome reveals a homogeneous matrix.” Molecular Biology of the Cell 28 (20): 2734-2745. doi:10.1091/ mbc.E17-01-0069. http://dx.doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E17-01-0069. Published Version doi:10.1091/mbc.E17-01-0069 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:34651752 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 M BoC | ARTICLE Superresolution microscopy of the β-carboxysome reveals a homogeneous matrix Matthew J. Niederhubera,b,†, Talley J. Lambertc, Clarence Yappd, Pamela A. Silvera,b, and Jessica K. Polkaa,b,* aDepartment of Systems Biology, cDepartment of Cell Biology, and dImage and Data Analysis Core, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115; bWyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115 ABSTRACT Carbon fixation in cyanobacteria makes a major contribution to the global carbon Monitoring Editor cycle. The cyanobacterial carboxysome is a proteinaceous microcompartment that protects Benjamin S. Glick and concentrates the carbon-fixing enzyme ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygen- University of Chicago ase (RuBisCO) in a paracrystalline lattice, making it possible for these organisms to fix CO2 Received: Jan 30, 2017 from the atmosphere.
    [Show full text]
  • Heather Joseph, Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) U.S
    ISBN: 978-9920-36-568-0 Dépôt légal: 2018MO4831 Open Access to Science: Foundations, Issues and Dynamics حرية النفاذ إلى العلم: اﻷسس والرهانات والديناميكيات Libre Accès à la Science : fondements, enjeux et dynamiques Publication de la 1ère version de l’E-book : Novembre 2018 Publication de la version complétée de l’E-book : Octobre 2019 Publication de la version papier : Décembre 2019 Les opinions exprimées dans la série n’engagent que leurs auteurs. La série est protégée par la licence Creative Commons BY-NC-SA : - Toute reproduction ou traduction, même partielle, de l’œuvre ou de l’une de ses composantes, est conditionnée par la citation de la source et de(s)nom(s)d’auteur(s) [BY] ; - Aucun profit commercial ne peut en être tiré sans autorisation des responsables de l’édition [NC] ; - Tout partage devrait être fait à l’identique [SA]. Information and Communication Sciences E-book Series Editrice Nozha Ibnlkhayat ISBN : 978-9920-36-568-0 Dépôt légal : 2018MO4831 Information and Communication Sciences: E-book Series 3rd International Colloquium on Open Access Open Access to science: Foundations, Issues and Dynamics Le libre accès à la science : Fondements, enjeux et dynamiques Rabat, 28-30 Novembre 2018 Organisateurs Coordinateurs Nozha Ibnlkhayat Wahid Gdoura Editrice : Nozha Ibnlkhayat Editeurs associés : Ahmed Abdelilah Bachr Adnane Benchakroun Ounsa Roudiès Comité scientifique 3e Colloque International sur le Libre Accès « icoa2018» Abdallaoui Maan Najia, ESI, Maroc GamouhNadjia, UC2, Algérie Al Ghamidi Saad, URS, Arabie Saoudite Gdoura Wahid, ISD, UM, Tunisie AmrousNaila, ESI, Maroc Ghaouti Loubna, UL, Canada Anwar Adil, EMI, UM5R, Maroc Guédon Jean Claude, UM, Canada Bachr Ahmed Abdelilah,ESI, Maroc Heather Joseph, Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Opening up Peer-Review Policies
    FEATURE Opening Up Peer-Review Policies Jessica Polka, Tony Ross-Hellauer, and Gary McDowell Authors in many disciplines favor1 peer review moving out of the shadows and becoming a more transparent practice. Accordingly, platforms and publishers are increasingly implementing open peer review (OPR) to enable new kinds of discourse within the publishing process. Yet, these systems differ in what is revealed when and to whom. OPR can operate on many different parts of the review process. It can infl uence the process of peer review (who can comment on the manuscript, and whether they can communicate with one another) as well as the transparency of information about peer review (the visibility of the manuscript or reviewer names, reports), and it can operate at Photo by Javier Allegue Barros (https://unsplash.com/photos/ many different times, from before submission (i.e., preprints) C7B-ExXpOIE?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_ to after publication (i.e., post-publication commenting). One content=creditCopyText) on Unsplash. of us undertook a systematic analysis2 of defi nitions of OPR; this uncovered 7 core traits, which were used in 22 distinct Scholarly activity in open peer review has also made confi gurations. The most frequently used elements of OPR signifi cant progress. In January 2019, results were released were revealing reviewer identities (open identities) and from a trial in which 5 Elsevier journals6 began publishing all publishing reviews (open reports). peer reviews. It showed that each journals’ submission rates increased during the trial. While the rate at which reviewers Growth in open peer-review accepted invitations to review declined, these declines implementations and experiments matched global trends, so may not have been caused by the While open peer review has been practiced by publishers review model.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads Have Grown Commen- Surately with Their Uploads [10]
    Neuroanatomy and Behaviour, 2020, 2(1), e9. Neuroanatomy ISSN: 2652-1768 and H doi: 10.35430/nab.2020.e9 ε Behaviour PROFESSIONALPERSPECTIVES Enhancing scientific dissemination in neuroscience via preprint peer-review: “Peer Community In Circuit Neuroscience” Marion S. Mercier1, Vincent Magloire1 and Mahesh Karnani2,* 1Institute of Neurology, UCL, London, United Kingdom and 2Institute for Neuroscience, ETH Zürich, Switzerland *[email protected] Abstract The dissemination of scientific results and new technologies in biomedical science is rapidly evolving from an exclusive and fee-oriented publishing system towards more open, free and independent strategies for sharing knowledge. In this context, preprint servers such as bioRxiv answer a very real scientific need by enabling the rapid, free and easy dissemination of findings, regardless of whether these are novel, replicated, or even showcasing negative results. Currently, thousands of manuscripts are being shared via bioRxiv each month, and neuroscience is the largest and fastest growing subject category. However, commenting on bioRxiv is declining and no structured scientific validation such as peer-review is currently available. The Peer Community In (PCI) platform addresses this unmet need by facilitating the rigorous evaluation and validation of preprints, and PCI Circuit Neuroscience (PCI C Neuro) aims to develop and extend this tool for the neuroscience community. Here we discuss PCI C Neuro’s mission, how it works, and why it is an essential initiative in this
    [Show full text]
  • Plos Progress Update 2014/2015 from the Chairman and Ceo
    PLOS PROGRESS UPDATE 2014/2015 FROM THE CHAIRMAN AND CEO PLOS is dedicated to the transformation of research communication through collaboration, transparency, speed and access. Since its founding, PLOS has demonstrated the viability of high quality, Open Access publishing; launched the ground- breaking PLOS ONE, a home for all sound science selected for its rigor, not its “significance”; developed the first Article- Level Metrics (ALMs) to demonstrate the value of research beyond the perceived status of a journal title; and extended the impact of research after its publication with the PLOS data policy, ALMs and liberal Open Access licensing. But challenges remain. Scientific communication is far from its ideal state. There is still inconsistent access, and research is oered at a snapshot in time, instead of as an evolving contribution whose reliability and significance are continually evaluated through its lifetime. The current state demands that PLOS continue to establish new standards and expectations for scholarly communication. These include a faster and more ecient publication experience, more transparent peer review, assessment though the lifetime of a work, better recognition of the range of contributions made by collaborators and placing researchers and their communities back at the center of scientific communication. To these ends, PLOS is developing ApertaTM, a system that will facilitate and advance the submission and peer review process for authors, editors and reviewers. PLOS is also creating richer and more inclusive forums, such as PLOS Paleontology and PLOS Ecology Communities and the PLOS Science Wednesday redditscience Ask Me Anything. Progress is being made on early posting of manuscripts at PLOS.
    [Show full text]
  • Das Zeitschriftenmanagement Wissenschaftlicher Bibliotheken Und Die Implikation Der Open-Access-Initiative
    DAS ZEITSCHRIFTENMANAGEMENT WISSENSCHAFTLICHER BIBLIOTHEKEN UND DIE IMPLIKATION DER OPEN-ACCESS-INITIATIVE Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doctor philosophiae (Dr. phil.) eingereicht an der Philosophischen Fakultät der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin von Miriam Judith Albers geb. Lorenz Präsidentin der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Dr. Sabine Kunst Dekanin: Prof. Dr. Gabriele Metzler Gutachter/in: 1. Prof. Dr. Peter Schirmbacher 2. Prof. Dr. Simone Fühles-Ubach Datum der Einreichung: 18.07.2017 Datum der Disputation:17.10.2017 I Inhalt Zusammenfassung .................................................................................................................. IV Abstract .................................................................................................................................... V Danksagung ............................................................................................................................. VI Abkürzungsverzeichnis ........................................................................................................ VII Tabellenverzeichnis ................................................................................................................. X Abbildungsverzeichnis ........................................................................................................... XI 1 Einleitung ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 Merkmale des Zeitschriftenmanagements
    [Show full text]
  • PMC June 2009 Minutes
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE NATIONAL CENTER FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY INFORMATION PUBMED CENTRAL NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE Function of the PubMed Central National Advisory Committee PubMed Central was established to support NIH‟s mission of disseminating the results of biomedical research widely to the public and to the scientific community. PubMed Central employs electronic publishing technology to archive, index and distribute peer-reviewed journal literature in the life sciences. The PubMed Central National Advisory Committee shall advise the Director, NIH, the Director, NLM, and the Director, NCBI, on the content and operation of the PubMed Central repository. Specifically, the Committee is charged to establish criteria to certify groups submitting materials to the system, monitoring its operation, and ensuring that PubMed Central evolves and remains responsive to the needs of researchers, publishers, librarians and the general public. Summary of Meeting – June 15, 2009 The meeting of the PubMed Central National Advisory Committee was convened on June 15, 2009, from 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., in the Board Room of the National Library of Medicine (NLM), Bethesda, Maryland. The meeting was open to the public. Dr. Gary Ward presided as Chair. Members Present Prue Adler, M.S., M.A., Association of Research Libraries Christopher Bird, B.A., Wellcome Trust Cynthia Henderson, M.L.S., Morehouse School of Medicine Maricel Kann, Ph.D., University of Maryland Sarah Michalak, M.L.S., University of North Carolina Mark Sobel, M.D., Ph.D., American Society for Investigative Pathology Michael Tanner, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Chicago Gary Ward, Ph.D., University of Vermont (PMC Advisory Committee Chair) Susan Weintraub, Ph.D., University of Texas Health Science Center John Wilbanks, B.A., Science Commons David J.
    [Show full text]
  • Free-For-All: Public Access and Publisher Rights Collide in the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act of 2009
    DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 20 Issue 1 Fall 2009 Article 6 Free-for-All: Public Access and Publisher Rights Collide in the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act of 2009 Stephanie Snyder Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip Recommended Citation Stephanie Snyder, Free-for-All: Public Access and Publisher Rights Collide in the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act of 2009, 20 DePaul J. Art, Tech. & Intell. Prop. L. 127 (2009) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip/vol20/iss1/6 This Legislative Updates is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Snyder: Free-for-All: Public Access and Publisher Rights Collide in the F FREE-FOR-ALL: PUBLIC ACCESS AND PUBLISHER RIGHTS COLLIDE IN THE FAIR COPYRIGHT IN RESEARCH WORKS ACT OF 2009 I. INTRODUCTION With its current annual budget of $30.5 billion,' the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") makes no small mark in the field of competitive research grant funding. More than eighty percent of that number is awarded to researchers around the world to fund their research,2 the very research that fuels global advances in life science and medicine. Naturally, because the NIH is a federal agency, its full budget comes from the allowances Congress makes for it in various appropriation and spending bills.
    [Show full text]