May 30,2008

To: 
Neil Thaker
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/ and a mailing list to answer questions at nihmandate@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.




Cornell University is an equal opportunity, affirmative action educator and employer.