May 30,2008

To:

Neil Thakur

Special Assistant to the NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research

National Institutes of Health

From:

Anne R. Kenney, Carl A. Kroch University Librarian, Cornell University
Library

Carolyn Anne Reid, M.A., AHIP, The Frances and John L. Loeb Librarian of
Medicine and Director, Weill Cornell Medical Library

Pamela T. Plotkin, Deputy Director, Office of Sponsored Programs,
Cornell University

Catherine E. Long, Associate Vice President, Research, Cornell
University

Subject:

Response to Request for Information: NIH Public Access Policy,

FR Doc. E8--6579 (NOT-OD-08-060)\
\
Cornell University Library, including the Weill Cornell Medical College
and Cornell Office of Sponsored Programs, submit on behalf of Cornell
University the following responses to the questions in the Request for
Comments found at <http://publicaccess.nih.gov/comments.htm>.\
\
#1 Do you have recommendations for alternative implementation approaches
to those already reflected in the NIH Public Access Policy?\
\
The implementation seems to be going very well right now. The NIH FAQ is
excellent, and the NIH tutorials are good. We are loath to see any quick
changes that would have an impact on the system as it now stands.

There are, however, some improvements that NIH should implement:\
\
1. Require researchers to retain the right to submit the PDF as
published,  rather than their final manuscript.  There are several
reasons why this change should be implemented:

-   Our experience has been that Cornell authors would prefer that their
    best work---meaning the authoritative published version---be what is
    available to the public. The author's final manuscript, while better
    than nothing, is not as valuable. It would eliminate the confusion
    created by having two public versions of a paper.

-   Requiring the deposit of the article as published would also obviate
    the extra step of having the manuscript as reworked by NIH
    subsequently approved by the PI.   Anything that can be done to make
    the process less demanding of the PIs time should be implemented.

-   The change is not as radical as one might think. Already the PMC
    partner journals deposit the published article for the authors. Many
    other journals will allow deposit of published articles after
    payment of an open access fee. There are no copyright implications
    for this, since NIH researchers would only be able to publish in
    journals that permit such deposit. If a journal does not wish to
    have the published version made available through PMC, it can refuse
    to publish NIH-funded research.

2\. As we stated in our previous submission of comments in March 2008
(<http://publicaccess.nih.gov/comments/comments_web_listing.htm>), it
would be very helpful if the maximum embargo period were much shorter,
at most 6 months. A 12-month embargo constitutes too long a delay for
access to needed research information.  Research libraries will not
cancel needed biomedical journal subscriptions even if a 6-month embargo
is implemented. No journal publishes only NIH-funded research. In order
to have ready access to the significant amount of biomedical information
not covered by the revised NIH Public Access Policy, research libraries
will need to maintain current subscriptions. A shorter embargo period
would allow greater use by the public of the NIH-funded research without
harming the subscription market for publishers.

In addition, a shorter embargo period would conform to existing Cornell
practice. In September 2007, the Cornell University Faculty Senate
passed a resolution encouraging all faculty to attach to their
publishing contracts the SPARC Author's Addendum. The addendum calls for
at most a 6-month moratorium on access. The NIH policy is therefore in
conflict with existing Cornell practice.

3\. We understand that the single most important change that needs to be
made is underway and should be implemented soon, changing the NIHMS
system so that Corresponding Authors, in addition to PIs, can approve
manuscripts after formatting. In many cases, and especially with
training grants, the PI is often only tangentially involved with a
publication. The author designated to correspond with publishers should
be the one able to approve manuscripts in the NIHMS system.\
 \
#2 In light of the change in law that makes NIH\'s public access policy
mandatory, do you have recommendations for monitoring and ensuring
compliance with the NIH Public Access Policy?

Compliance should be the responsibility of the PI.  The institution
should be responsible for informing the PI about his or her
responsibilities under the NIH mandate and educating the PI should the
policy not be followed. In extreme cases of repeated refusal to comply
with the mandate, it may be necessary to exclude PIs from consideration
for future grants or even ban an institution from eligibility. This
"death threat," however should exist in theory only, as a spur to
enhanced educational activities. We see a model comparable to FERPA
(Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) implementations on campuses.
While repeated FERPA violations could in theory cause an institution to
lose all federal funding, in practice FERPA violations are handled on an
*ad hoc* basis through education and training.

Formal institutional review of the publishing practices of researchers
in order to ensure compliance with the new requirements should be
avoided. It is logistically impossible for our Office of Sponsored
Programs (OSP) to confirm that all of the researchers submitting NIH
applications, proposals, and progress reports have included the PubMed
Central reference number for all papers that they cite that fall under
the policy. Nor would it be appropriate for OSP to approve the selection
of a publisher or the terms of a publication contract for this would
have serious implications for academic freedom. We are happy to
publicize requirements of the NIH grant, but it is ultimately the
responsible for the PI to assure compliance.

#3 In addition to the information already posted at
<http://publicaccess.nih.gov/communications.htm>, what additional
information, training or communications related to the NIH Public Access
Policy would be helpful to you?\
\
It is critical for the success of this initiative that NIH continues to
invest in the infrastructure that makes it easy to implement. There are
at least three things that NIH should be doing: actively soliciting more
journals to become full NIH partners; maintaining, in addition to the
list of partner journals, a current list of titles for which journal
publishers will submit author manuscripts on behalf of the authors; and
coordinating with groups such as SHERPA/RoMEO and OAKLIST to ensure that
they contain accurate information on the compliance/non-compliance of
STM publishers with the PMC mandate.\
\
Additional comments related to the NIH Public Access Policy

We commend NIH for soliciting comments while moving ahead in a timely
manner with this critically important, congressionally mandated policy.
Cornell University supports the revised NIH Policy because it is
integrally tied to the mission of higher education. Public support for
science is enhanced when the public can see the benefits from our
investments in scientific research.  Scientific research itself is
advanced when there is wide dissemination of new knowledge.\
 \
Many parts of our institution including the Vice-Provost for Research,
the University Counsel\'s Office, the Office of Sponsored Programs, and
the Cornell University Library, have been actively engaged in assisting
NIH-funded researchers in complying with the revised policy.  Working
together we have established an informational website at
[http://www.library.cornell.edu/nihmandate/ ](http://www.library.cornell.edu/nihmandate/ )and
a mailing list to answer questions at <mnihmandate@cornell.edu>. We have
also revised our \"Form 10 Addendum for NIH proposals\", the mandatory
NIH certification statement that is required of all PIs when they submit
a grant proposal to the NIH. This form has been modified to include a
reminder about the PI's responsibility under the NIH Public Access
Policy. A series of workshops have been held for interested faculty,
staff, and graduate students, and a mailing to all current NIH-funded
PIs has been completed. The Weill Cornell Medical Library and Office of
Research and Sponsored Programs have undertaken similar steps
specifically to inform medical college PIs and authors.

In short, the University has made a substantial investment in educating
NIH researchers and in complying with the new requirements. We welcome
incremental improvements to the program such as we suggested above. Any
hiatus in the current implementation, however, would only confuse and
anger researchers, negate the substantial investment our institution has
already made in compliance, and make the successful implementation of
any revised program much harder.