ALPSPs response to Request for Information: 
National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy 
(NOT-OD-08-060)

To: 
Office of Extramural Research
National Institutes of Health
1 Center Drive, Room 144
Bethesda, MD  20892-0152 
Email:  PublicAccess@nih.gov

From:
Ian Russell
Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Bluebell Lodge, 8 Rickford Road
Nailsea, BRISTOL BS48 4PY
UK

1	Introduction

The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) is the 
international association for non-profit publishers and those that work with them.  
ALPSP is the only international association that represents scholarly and professional 
publishers across all disciplines of academic endeavour.  Its broad and diverse 
membership includes publishers of journals operating on author-side payment models, 
subscription models and hybrid business models combining these.  ALPSP has more 
than 360 organizational members including more than 40 in the United States.  We 
have members in 36 countries who collectively publish more than 10,000 journals  
around half the worlds total - as well as books, databases and other resources.
ALPSPs mission is to play an active part in shaping the future of academic and 
scholarly communication, and we welcome the opportunity given by the National 
Institutes of Health to comment on the Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access to 
Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research (NOT-OD-08-057) 
(Revised Policy) by responding to the Request for Information: NIH Public Access 
Policy (NOT-OD-08-060).

This submission will only comment on those questions which we consider relevant to 
the ALPSP membership.

2	General comments

ALPSP supports the principle of public access to scientific literature but believes that the 
aims of the NIH public access policy are best met by NIH consulting and working in 
conjunction with all relevant stakeholders, including publishers, on an ongoing basis and 
in a robust and meaningful manner.

We believe that by implementing the Revised Policy on April 7, 2008 - before completing 
a thorough consultation - the approach taken by NIH regarding the Revised Policy does 
not adhere to the Administrative Procedure Act.  We also note the short timescales 
between the announcement on March 7, 2008 of a public meeting regarding the Revised 
Policy, the meeting taking place on March 20, 2008 and the Revised Policy coming into 
effect on April 7, 2008.

We therefore respectfully request that the NIH suspend the Revised Policy and 
undertake a formal rulemaking according to the provisions of the Administrative 
Procedure Act.  A Rulemaking would allow all interested stakeholders the opportunity to 
comment with adequate deadlines and offer a formal procedure via which the NIH could 
address the issues raised.

3	Question 1 - Do you have recommendations for alternative implementation 
approaches to those already reflected in the NIH Public Access Policy?

3.1	Many journal publishers, and most of those publishing in the biomedical sciences, 
make the final version of record journal article freely available on the Internet a 
maximum of 12 months after publication.  We believe that it would be highly 
preferable if NIH linked PubMed and/or PubMed Central to final published journal 
articles on publishers website and adapted PubMed and PubMed Central to allow 
for full-text searching across the publishers websites.

This approach does not constitute a dark archive as some have suggested since 
articles appearing in journals operating a delayed open access publishing model 
are available freely on the Internet in compliance with the NIH public access 
requirement.  We would suggest that the policy mandating deposit of peer-
reviewed manuscripts in PubMed Central should be reserved for only those 
articles published in journals that do not make content freely available on the 
publishers website after 12 months or less.

There are numerous advantages to this approach:
*	It would provide a more comprehensive one-stop-shop for searching the 
biomedical literature which would include vastly more than the 10% of 
articles that arise from NIH funded research
*	It would assist with version control and enable readers to access the 
trustworthy version of record with corrections, links to corrigenda and 
errata and thus maintain the integrity of the corpus of literature
*	Journals would be able to determine their own access policies within a 12 
month timeframe based upon the requirements of their business models
*	It would eliminate needless and expensive duplication of the storage, 
curation and preservation of a large number of research articles

We therefore urge NIH to reconsider this proposal.

3.2	We note the confusion that has arisen from the use of the term journal articles 
in the Public Access Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) posted on January 11, 
2008 and the continued use of the terms journal manuscripts and journal 
papers used in the amended version of the FAQs  as updated on May 2, 2008.  
We believe that NIH should be clear and unambiguous in referring to the final 
peer-reviewed manuscript in order to avoid confusion with the final journal 
version of record.

We would draw your attention to the NISO / ALPSP project on Journal Article 
Versions  which will shortly produce a standard nomenclature for versions of 
journal articles.  We urge NIH to utilize these definitions once the standard has 
been formally announced by NISO.

3.3	We note that Congress directed the NIH to ensure copyright agreements and 
rights were preserved and it seems onerous, unfair and an avoidance of this 
responsibility to transfer that obligation to researchers.  At the very least the NIH 
should implement procedures during the process of uploading manuscripts to 
PubMed Central to check that the version of the article uploaded is consistent 
with copyright law and that institutions and investigators are complying with their 
obligation to ensure that any publishing or copyright agreements concerning 
submitted articles fully comply with this Policy.

3.4	The Revised Policy now calls for the deposit of review articles.  Review articles 
are commissioned by Publishers and Editors and are written based on the 
scientific expertise of the author; they are not based on the specific research 
projects supported by NIH grants and we therefore respectfully suggest that 
review articles should not be subject to the mandatory Revised Policy.

4	Question 2 - In light of the change in law that makes NIHs public access policy 
mandatory, do you have recommendations for monitoring and ensuring 
compliance with the NIH Public Access Policy?

4.1	As mentioned in 3.3 above, ALPSP believes that NIH should implement measures 
to ensure that manuscripts deposited in Pub Med Central in response to the 
Revised Policy are the correct version and that the Revised Policy is therefore 
implemented in a manner consistent with journal policies and copyright law.

4.2	To assist with version control, adherence to copyright law and to minimize 
duplication of costs, NIH should implement measures to ensure that where 
manuscripts are deposited by journals on behalf of their authors the submission 
of duplicate copies or different versions are not accepted for ingress into PubMed 
Central.

4.3	We believe that NIH should implement measures to detect inappropriate usage of 
manuscripts and other copyrighted material posted on PubMed Central and 
should immediately alert the publisher of any articles so abused.  NIH should also 
implement specific safeguards to prevent copyrighted material available on 
PubMed Central from being altered, pirated, made into derivative works, 
redisplayed, republished, resold or used for any other commercial purpose.

5	Question 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?

5.1	ALPSP fully supports the thorough list of concerns regarding the NIH public 
access policy and its implementation advanced by the Professional and Scholarly 
Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers and the DC 
Principles Coalition.  These questions were raised in a letter  to Dr E A Zerhouni 
on April 16, 2008 and are attached to our response as Appendix I for your 
convenience.
 
6	Question 4 - Do you have other comments related to the NIH Public Access 
Policy?

Please see our general comments in section 2 above.

In addition, we are aware of calls for the NIH to reduce the upper limit of the Revised 
Policys embargo period from 12 months to six months or less.  Research  has indicated 
that the upper limit of 12 months is the minimum required for publishers of biomedical 
journals supported by subscription revenues to have a chance of recovering their costs.  
We therefore urge NIH to commit retaining the upper limit at 12 months and allow 
journals to choose a shorter embargo period if it is compatible with their business 
model.

Ian Russell
Chief Executive, ALPSP
May 2008

Appendix I  Questions / comments raised by Professional and Scholarly Publishing 
Division of the Association of American Publishers and the DC Principles Coalition

1) Regarding Consultation with Publishers, Societies and Authors

	Many investigators are not aware of the new policy. Does NIH have a formal 
mechanism and the necessary resources to handle the questions that will arise 
from authors and journals?
	What is NIHs timeline for amending this policy moving forward?
	What mechanism will NIH put in place to continue the dialogue with publishers 
that will help ensure this policy is implemented and steered effectively and that 
publisher concerns are addressed?

2) Regarding Copyright 

	Why hasnt the NIH supported the full value of copyright and its use in business 
models including those which involve driving traffic to a publisher site, and permit 
linking to publishers web sites, rather than requiring deposit at PubMed Central?

3) Regarding Brand Protection, Repurposing and Piracy

	What mechanisms will NIH put in place to ensure that any revisions to 
copyrighted materials such as reformatting, enhancing, linking or otherwise 
changing the articles respect the integrity of the copyrighted content it receives? 
What assurance will NIH give that this will be done in accordance with guidelines 
agreed to with publishers?
	Will NIH identify precisely how manuscripts will be linked to databases and other 
resources, and which databases? Publisher concerns about links include: a) would 
links within the article obscure the information in the text? b) Would it change 
the editorial emphasis by seeming to suggest that certain information within the 
article is more important than other information, simply because there is a link? 
c) Would it be appropriate to change that emphasis in the context of the research 
and the articles focus?
	How will NIH ensure proper protection of publisher or society trademarks and 
branding? There been no affirmation of these markers of quality, and often 
branding information is missing, potentially misleading users to the erroneous 
conclusion that the NIH is claiming copyright, or that the content is in the public 
domain.
	How will NIH respect the rights of copyright holders and stipulate what NIH will or 
will not allow related to third-party use of its works? Will NIH, for example, 
ensure that manuscripts are not distributed to other sites around the world 
besides PubMed Central? Will NIH implement guidelines that explicitly prohibit 
third parties from exploiting content that appears on PMC without the consent of 
the publisher?
	How will NIH prevent piracy of the articles from PubMed Central? Will NIH 
prevent copyrighted material available on PMC from being altered, pirated, made 
into derivative works, redisplayed, republished, resold or used for any other 
commercial purpose? What will happen if piracy is discovered as a result of 
downloading of content from PubMed Central and will NIH notify publishers?
	If deposited content will be mirrored to other sites outside the U.S., after 
publisher approval, how will the sites be established, and how would national and 
international copyright considerations protect rights holders? What guidelines will 
NIH agree to with publishers before any distribution of copyrighted content 
occurs on PMC international mirror sites?

4) Regarding Compensation

	What latitude will NIH have in negotiating terms and conditions directly with 
publishers and other rightsholders who might wish to undertake direct licensing 
arrangements with NIH that would enable the deposit of copyrighted works on 
behalf of authors? Given that NIHs policy would amend many journal copyright 
policies and effectively reduce the value of those rights, will NIH be empowered 
to negotiate such licensing terms, including publication charges/payment, as 
certain non-government funding agencies have done?
	The policy provides for publisher deposit of final peer-reviewed manuscripts on 
behalf of authors, and includes allowance for grantees to use grant funds in the 
payment of publication fees. How will such funds be identified in the grant and 
what has NIH budgeted per year for such costs over the next five years?

5) Regarding Scope

	If other public or private funders support research also supported by NIH, what 
will researchers be expected to do if these other sources oppose the posting of 
their funded work on PubMed Central?
	Will NIH agree to stipulate that its requirement for the deposit of peer-reviewed 
manuscripts in PubMed Central only applies when NIH funding represents 
substantial funding for the research on which the scholarly work is based?
	The policy also holds that Principal investigators and their institutions are 
responsible for ensuring all terms and conditions of awards are met. Yet, this 
includes the submission of articles that arise directly from the investigators NIH-
funded research even if they did not author or co-author the publication. In fact, 
NIH-funded investigators and institutions are being held responsible for making 
sure these other authors are aware of and comply with the NIH policy. How 
could they comply with this provision?
	What will the repercussions be for investigators and journals that do not follow 
the process?
	NIHs 2005 voluntary policy stated that it did not apply to contributed book 
chapters, editorials, reviews, or conference proceedings. Rather, it applied only 
to peer-reviewed research publications. Will NIH modify its guidelines to state 
that its deposit requirement only applies to peer-reviewed manuscripts that 
report findings of empirical research and does not apply to literature reviews?

6) Regarding Integrity of Research, Quality Control and Meaningful Public Access

	How will the NIH know the final month of publication when the month is not 
always established upon acceptance to a journal?
	Many manuscripts currently appear on PMC in violation of publisher policies. How 
will NIH ensure under the new public access policy that individuals post the 
correct manuscript version to PMC to be publicly available at the correct time, 
consistent with publisher agreements? Will NIH ensure that embargo and posting 
policies are implemented on a journal-by-journal level or at least publisher-level? 
Will NIH provide a detailed description of the process at NIH to monitor and 
ensure prompt take-down of manuscripts improperly submitted?
	For publishers submitting directly, how will NIH ensure that manuscripts will not 
be accepted from individuals or entities other than the publisher?
	How will NIH ensure that researchers are not misled as to the accuracy and 
validity of manuscripts on PMC? Will there be pointers to final published versions 
on publisher sites? Will NIH develop, for example, a special section within PMC for 
members of the general public/patients to land on suitable information for 
patients and disclaimers that the PMC author manuscript represents only a 
small part of the literature, with references and links to voluntary health 
organizations (VHOs), Patient Inform, publisher sites?
	How will NIH deal with plagiarism and ethics issues? Will NIH establish guidelines 
in consultation with publishers on how to deal with corrective notices, 
corrigendum, and retractions?

7) Regarding Cost

	NIH faces funding shortages from the federal government. How much will it cost 
to effectively implement this policy?
	Does this cost detract from funds to grantees actually conducting the innovative 
research that advances science?

8) Regarding Measuring Impact and Effectiveness

	Will NIH provide publishers with detailed and robust PMC bibliographic usage 
statistics that will enable them to assess the impact of PMC usage on their 
subscriptions?
	What oversight or governance will monitor whether NIHs performance in pursuit 
of its intended purpose a) is met; b) is not costly for the taxpayer; c) is not 
burdensome on research investigators; or d) does not have a negative impact on 
the integrity of the scientific and medical literature (e.g. errors and versioning 
problems introduced, economic harm to journals and publishers)?
	What steps will NIH take if it is found that its Public Access Policy is hurting 
rather than advancing scientific research?

  http://publicaccess.nih.gov/FAQ.htm
  http://www.niso.org/workrooms/jav
  See http://www.dcprinciples.org/Zehouni-4-16-08.pdf
  See for example Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: Co-existence or Competition? (Beckett and Inger 
2007; www.publishingresearch.net/documents/Self-archiving_summary2.pdf) and ALPSP Survey of Librarians 
on Factors in Journal Cancellation (Ware 2006; www.alpsp.org) 
 
 
 
 
ALPSP RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION: NIH PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY (NOT-OD-08-060)

7 of 7

The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
Shaping the Future of Learned and Professional Publishing