NIH Public Access to journal articles - comments needed by March 17

This message is circulating among various cancer lists.

Charles Clausen

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you know, a bill was passed recently that will make it mandatory
for
articles resulting from NIH funded research to be placed in a
repository at the
National Library of Medicine and made available free of charge to the
public, no
later than 12 months after they are published. There are some who
think this
is unreasonable, and don't want to release these articles since
currently they
require subscriptions or large per article charges. We advocacy
organization
leaders have often discussed the hardship the current system places on
this -
NIH is ready to change it - we need to support the change!

NIH very much wants to hear your opinion on this and has opened a site
for
you to post comments - it is very simple to comment:
http://publicaccess.nih.gov/comments.htm
Deadline: 5pm EST on Monday, March 17, 2008.

1. What is the NIH Public Access Policy?

The Policy implements Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL
110-161
(Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008) which states:

SEC. 218. The Director of the National Institutes of Health
shall
require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have
submitted for
them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an
electronic version
of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for
publication, to
be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official
date of
publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access
policy in
a manner consistent with copyright law.

The Public Access Policy ensures that the public has access to the
published results of NIH funded research. It requires scientists to
submit journal
articles that arise from NIH funds to the digital archive PubMed
Central (
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/). The Policy requires that these
articles be
accessible to the public on PubMed Central to help advance science and
improve
human health.

Please join your voices together to make sure we have access to the
articles
we need!

Best,
Sharon

===========================
Sharon F. Terry, MA | President and CEO
Genetic Alliance | 4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW | Suite 404 |
Washington, DC
20008 | Phone: 202.966.5557 x201 | Fax: 202.966.855

Charles Clausen wrote:
> This message is circulating among various cancer lists.
>
> Charles Clausen
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As you know, a bill was passed recently that will make it mandatory
> for
> articles resulting from NIH funded research to be placed in a
> repository at the
> National Library of Medicine and made available free of charge to the
> public, no
> later than 12 months after they are published. There are some who
> think this
> is unreasonable, and don't want to release these articles since
> currently they
> require subscriptions or large per article charges. We advocacy
> organization
> leaders have often discussed the hardship the current system places on
> this -
> NIH is ready to change it - we need to support the change!
>
> NIH very much wants to hear your opinion on this and has opened a site
> for
> you to post comments - it is very simple to comment:
> http://publicaccess.nih.gov/comments.htm

I've just posted a comment explaining why public access is important
specifically to me. I recommend that those who've tried to access
journals and found stymied by the fact that only abstracts were
available should also post comments supporting this initiative.

> Deadline: 5pm EST on Monday, March 17, 2008.
>
> 1. What is the NIH Public Access Policy?
>
> The Policy implements Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL
> 110-161
> (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008) which states:
>
> SEC. 218. The Director of the National Institutes of Health
> shall
> require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have
> submitted for
> them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an
> electronic version
> of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for
> publication, to
> be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official
> date of
> publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access
> policy in
> a manner consistent with copyright law.
>
> The Public Access Policy ensures that the public has access to the
> published results of NIH funded research. It requires scientists to
> submit journal
> articles that arise from NIH funds to the digital archive PubMed
> Central (
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/). The Policy requires that these
> articles be
> accessible to the public on PubMed Central to help advance science and
> improve
> human health.
>
> Please join your voices together to make sure we have access to the
> articles
> we need!
>
> Best,
> Sharon
>
> ===========================
> Sharon F. Terry, MA | President and CEO
> Genetic Alliance | 4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW | Suite 404 |
> Washington, DC
> 20008 | Phone: 202.966.5557 x201 | Fax: 202.966.855

I also just posted a comment in favor of the proposal.

I wonder, if this proposal goes through, if some publishers
will give higher priority to funding non-government
sponsored research. That would be unfortunate.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Alan

Alan Meyer wrote:
> I also just posted a comment in favor of the proposal.
>
> I wonder, if this proposal goes through, if some publishers
> will give higher priority to funding non-government
> sponsored research. That would be unfortunate.

Journals don't generally fund research. They make money by charging
ridiculously high prices, mainly to librairies, since few individuals
can afford to subscribe to all the journals they need. The added value
provided by publishers in in the rerereeing/editing process. The
rfereeing is done by unpaid volunteers almos entirely, so it costs them
little. Editors are also seldom paid, but copy editors are. The
latter do sometimes add some value, but they can also be a pain in the
neck, particularly when they don't really understand the subject and
make suggestions which radically alter the meaning. As the high energy
physicists have discovered, a scientific community can do very well
with freely available publication on the web. They bascially invented
the internet to facilitate that. (Let's not go into Al Gore's
contribution which was to highlight it and foster its growth in
Congress. He never claimed he invented it and his description of what
he did was not inaccurate.)

Journals do play a useful role, but in the age of the internet, we could
make do in most fields with many fewer of them which could concentrate
on the most important work and make that available in finished form.

Unfortunately, in many fields, researchers are used to certain ways of
doing things and many of them involve commercial journals. Old ways
sometimes die hard, but die they will.


>
> It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
>
> Alan

On Mar 16, 6:00 pm, Leonard Evens <l...@math.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> ...
> Journals don't generally fund research. They make money by charging
> ridiculously high prices, mainly to librairies, since few individuals
> can afford to subscribe to all the journals they need.

Hi Leonard,

Do you know if journals make substantial amounts of money selling
reprints?

If not, I would think the NIH proposal to force publications into
the public domain after one year would have very little economic
impact on publishers.

> ...
> Journals do play a useful role, but in the age of the internet,
> we could make do in most fields with many fewer of them which
> could concentrate on the most important work and make that
> available in finished form.

I think that's probably right. I've seen some online journals
like _Cell_, covering molecular biology, that seem to me to be
really excellent (though I'm not an expert in the field and am
not the best judge.)

> ... Old ways sometimes die hard, but die they will.

As one of the prominent hackers said 24 years ago, "information
wants to be free". It's getting increasingly difficult for book,
journal, news, magazine, movie and music publishers to hang on to
their old business models. Some are fighting a rear guard action
that will preserve their profits only in the short run. Others
are attempting to embrace the future, but often at great cost.

It's an exciting time. Fortunately for most of us, including
most researchers, we are producers and consumers of information,
but not people whose livelihoods are dependent on copyright
controls.

Alan

Alan Meyer wrote:
> On Mar 16, 6:00 pm, Leonard Evens <l...@math.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>> ...
>> Journals don't generally fund research. They make money by charging
>> ridiculously high prices, mainly to librairies, since few individuals
>> can afford to subscribe to all the journals they need.
>
> Hi Leonard,
>
> Do you know if journals make substantial amounts of money selling
> reprints?
>
> If not, I would think the NIH proposal to force publications into
> the public domain after one year would have very little economic
> impact on publishers.
>
>> ...
>> Journals do play a useful role, but in the age of the internet,
>> we could make do in most fields with many fewer of them which
>> could concentrate on the most important work and make that
>> available in finished form.
>
> I think that's probably right. I've seen some online journals
> like _Cell_, covering molecular biology, that seem to me to be
> really excellent (though I'm not an expert in the field and am
> not the best judge.)
>
>> ... Old ways sometimes die hard, but die they will.
>
> As one of the prominent hackers said 24 years ago, "information
> wants to be free". It's getting increasingly difficult for book,
> journal, news, magazine, movie and music publishers to hang on to
> their old business models. Some are fighting a rear guard action
> that will preserve their profits only in the short run. Others
> are attempting to embrace the future, but often at great cost.
>
> It's an exciting time. Fortunately for most of us, including
> most researchers, we are producers and consumers of information,
> but not people whose livelihoods are dependent on copyright
> controls.

I can't speak about other fields, but in mathematics I've only rarely
heard of author's ordering additional reprints, and I've never heard of
anyone buying a reprint from a journal. Photocopiers have been long
available and people would usually just photocopy papers from journals.
In addition, authors often distributed preprints of their work before
publication. These days, of course, people put their papers on the web.
Essentially everything published after about 1997 is available that
way, so there is little need to order a reprint of a paper.

Because my department has a growing population of retired professors and
little free room for office space for emeriti, I've had to move my
collection of reprints (and everything else) to home. Since I have
limited space in my condo, I've taken to scanning that which I want to
keep and keeping it on a large external hard drive. But I don't bother
for things that are available over the web. There are only a few
journals which currently aren't, and that doesn't include the major
ones. But those papers are seldom available to the general public. I
have to go through NU's Library website, which I can do from home. The
Library of course, with a few exceptions pays the journals for online
access and sometimes there are restrictions for current issues; users
may have to wait up to a year.

The NU Medical School Libary is not as easy to use, and it doesn't have
some of the journals with prostate cancer articles I might want to look
at. But in principle at least I have similar access there and I have
used it.

>
> Alan

On Mar 17, 7:18 pm, Leonard Evens <l...@math.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> ...
> I can't speak about other fields, but in mathematics I've only rarely
> heard of author's ordering additional reprints, and I've never heard of
> anyone buying a reprint from a journal. Photocopiers have been long
> available and people would usually just photocopy papers from journals.

Of course! It's obvious now that I think about it.
I remember when photocopiers came into libraries and
publishers had fits trying to stifle that then new
technology.

It is indeed hard to imagine why anyone would order a reprint.

If the publishers spend money to try to squelch the NIH
plan to make publicly funded research results public, they'll
be wasting their money. The information will get around.

> ... Since I have
> limited space in my condo, I've taken to scanning that which I want to
> keep and keeping it on a large external hard drive. But I don't bother
> for things that are available over the web. ...

I've been following a similar policy. I have, for example,
tons of old family photos. By scanning them, I can store
them in a tiny space, copy them any number of times, give
the complete archive to my children and other family members
on a 25 cent DVD, and preserve them from the inevitable
degradation to which paper, ink, and dyes are subject.


>... I
> have to go through NU's Library website, which I can do from home. The
> Library of course, with a few exceptions pays the journals for online
> access and sometimes there are restrictions for current issues; users
> may have to wait up to a year. ...

I have similar access to biomedical journals through my work
at the National Cancer Institute - which I can also access
from home. It is a great convenience as compared to going
to far off libraries.

> The NU Medical School Library is not as easy to use, and it doesn't have
> some of the journals with prostate cancer articles I might want to look
> at. But in principle at least I have similar access there and I have
> used it.

Thanks for the reply.

Alan Meyer wrote:
> On Mar 17, 7:18 pm, Leonard Evens <l...@math.northwestern.edu> wrote:
>> ...
>> I can't speak about other fields, but in mathematics I've only rarely
>> heard of author's ordering additional reprints, and I've never heard of
>> anyone buying a reprint from a journal. Photocopiers have been long
>> available and people would usually just photocopy papers from journals.
>
> Of course! It's obvious now that I think about it.
> I remember when photocopiers came into libraries and
> publishers had fits trying to stifle that then new
> technology.
>
> It is indeed hard to imagine why anyone would order a reprint.
>
> If the publishers spend money to try to squelch the NIH
> plan to make publicly funded research results public, they'll
> be wasting their money. The information will get around.
>
>> ... Since I have
>> limited space in my condo, I've taken to scanning that which I want to
>> keep and keeping it on a large external hard drive. But I don't bother
>> for things that are available over the web. ...
>
> I've been following a similar policy. I have, for example,
> tons of old family photos. By scanning them, I can store
> them in a tiny space, copy them any number of times, give
> the complete archive to my children and other family members
> on a 25 cent DVD, and preserve them from the inevitable
> degradation to which paper, ink, and dyes are subject.

Photography has become my retirement vocation. I also have been storing
images on CDs and now on DVDs. One thing that concerns me a bit is
that no current storage technology, including CD/DVD, can guarantee
permanence. I've taken to using the highest quality CDs---I haven't
yet found the equivalent for DVDs---to store the most important
pictures. Any old thing would work for me since I expect I won't last
all that much longer, but I would like my children, grandchildren, and
beyond to be able to access the pictures too.

>
>
>> ... I
>> have to go through NU's Library website, which I can do from home. The
>> Library of course, with a few exceptions pays the journals for online
>> access and sometimes there are restrictions for current issues; users
>> may have to wait up to a year. ...
>
> I have similar access to biomedical journals through my work
> at the National Cancer Institute - which I can also access
> from home. It is a great convenience as compared to going
> to far off libraries.
>
>> The NU Medical School Library is not as easy to use, and it doesn't have
>> some of the journals with prostate cancer articles I might want to look
>> at. But in principle at least I have similar access there and I have
>> used it.
>
> Thanks for the reply.

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:06:03 -0500, Leonard Evens
<len@math.northwestern.edu> wrote:

>
>Photography has become my retirement vocation. I also have been storing
>images on CDs and now on DVDs. One thing that concerns me a bit is
>that no current storage technology, including CD/DVD, can guarantee
>permanence. I've taken to using the highest quality CDs---I haven't
>yet found the equivalent for DVDs---to store the most important
>pictures.

Here's one source for MAM-A DVDs as well as CDs. There are many
others, of course.

http://www.datamediastore.com/mam-a.html

Burney
RP in 1995 (age 52)
RT in 2000
ADT (Casodex) 10/06 - 8/07
Latest PSA - 0.18

burney dot huff at mindspring dot com

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:06:03 -0400, Leonard Evens wrote
(in article <Cc6dnTRPjLbhiELanZ2dnUVZ_quhnZ2d@comcast.com>):

[snip]

> Photography has become my retirement vocation. I also have been storing
> images on CDs and now on DVDs. One thing that concerns me a bit is
> that no current storage technology, including CD/DVD, can guarantee
> permanence. I've taken to using the highest quality CDs---I haven't
> yet found the equivalent for DVDs---to store the most important
> pictures. Any old thing would work for me since I expect I won't last
> all that much longer, but I would like my children, grandchildren, and
> beyond to be able to access the pictures too.

My guess is that the bigger issue will be the availability of hardware and
software to _read_ those CD's and DVD's. Imagine if right now you had data
stored on Syquest Cartridges, for example. Can you even buy a floppy disk
reader any more?

I have a couple of old 8-track tapes that I'd like to convert to mp3's. I'm
sure the data is good... but try to find a player :-) I also have some
programs on punched paper tape...

Despite all it's frailties, there is something to be said for a good old hard
copy.

--
Dedman


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Mar 18, 1:41 pm, Dedman <dedman.walk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
> My guess is that the bigger issue will be the availability of
> hardware and software to _read_ those CD's and DVD's. Imagine
> if right now you had data stored on Syquest Cartridges, for
> example. Can you even buy a floppy disk reader any more?
>
> I have a couple of old 8-track tapes that I'd like to convert
> to mp3's. I'm sure the data is good... but try to find a
> player :-) I also have some programs on punched paper tape...

Good points. Right now, the DVD players, and presumably the new
Blu-Ray players, are backwards compatible. I don't know how long
that will continue.

For similar reasons, we need to think about the longevity of the
logical encoding formats we use.

Proprietary RAW formats for images may well change and become
unreadable in future systems. I also wonder if the currently
ubiquitous JPEG compression and JFIF file layout will be replaced
by JPEG2000 and some different file layout. It can't happen
soon, but maybe it can happen.

For those with words to preserve, I think it makes a lot of sense
to consider plain ASCII text (which is also Unicode UTF-8
compatible) rather than formats like Microsoft Word - which
change every few years.

The new Word 2007 uses a new file format by default. For quite a
while already I believe Word versions have stopped supporting the
Word 1, 2, 3, etc. formats, though converters may still be
available.

So if you want your diary to survive, Notepad, or a word
processor configured to output plain text, will be a lot safer
than using any Word (or WordPerfect, or Lotus, or even OpenOffice
etc.) format.

> Despite all it's frailties, there is something to be said for a
> good old hard copy.

True, though copying that 300 page novel you've just produced in
your typewriter can be something of a chore.

And be sure to use acid-free paper.

Alan

So far I've had no problems Googling stuff I posted way last century,
for better or worse. If I really wanted to preserve stuff, I'd archive
it on two or more archive storage websites. In the meantime, I find
Google's archives of my and others' posts very useful for many purposes
and a great time-saver, and I have yet to find anything I really wish I
could retract. Any medium on which I can use a keyword search to find
within 0.193 seconds something I or others said a decade ago is OK by
me. If I wanted to hide something, I'd never have posted it in the first
place, and I'm not going to waste time sweating or trying to hide a few
simple misstatements out of tens of thousands of posts. Ye old 80/20
rule works here, too.

I.P.

> Photography has become my retirement vocation. I also have been storing
> images on CDs and now on DVDs. One thing that concerns me a bit is that
> no current storage technology, including CD/DVD, can guarantee permanence.
> I've taken to using the highest quality CDs---I haven't yet found the
> equivalent for DVDs---to store the most important pictures. Any old
> thing would work for me since I expect I won't last all that much longer,
> but I would like my children, grandchildren, and beyond to be able to
> access the pictures too.

Finally, something of which I am somewhat of an expert. You are dead right
about "permanent" media. Most states require "permanent" records to be
recorded on microfilm(fiche). Even paper has a shelf life of between 100
and 200 years, depending on how well it is maintained.

Electronic media? Hell, that my be the worst. Records in my company were
first kept on 15 mb hard drives. These were essentially 15 platters that
went into a cabinet about half the size of a washer or dryer. That was only
20 years ago. Then came 8" floppies, then 5¼ floppies, then 3½" floppies.
So, in 30 years we went through 4 evolutions of electronic media every one
of which is now obsolete. CDs are on their way out. DVDs are starting to
come to a standard. Flashdrives a few years ago were 256 MB, then 1GB and
now 20GB and may easily be replaced by something the size of a dime that
fits in your watch.

I wonder if the Internet will become the new "permanent", albeit virtual,
medium.

"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47e2adf2$0$6487$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> That was only 20 years ago.

Mistyped. It was 40 years ago. 1967.

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 14:58:19 -0400, "Steve Kramer"
<skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote:

>"Steve Kramer" <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:47e2adf2$0$6487$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>> That was only 20 years ago.
>
>Mistyped. It was 40 years ago. 1967.

It seems like yesterday.......

Burney
>
RP in 1995 (age 52)
RT in 2000
ADT (Casodex) 10/06 - 8/07
Latest PSA - 0.18

burney dot huff at mindspring dot com

On Mar 18, 2:51 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote:
> ... If I really wanted to preserve stuff, I'd archive
> it on two or more archive storage websites. In the meantime, I find
> Google's archives of my and others' posts very useful for many purposes
> and a great time-saver, and I have yet to find anything I really wish I
> could retract. Any medium on which I can use a keyword search to find
> within 0.193 seconds something I or others said a decade ago is OK by
> me. ...

You're right about the searching, but I don't know about the
permanence. Before Google there was Deja News. Google bought
the Deja News operation and first announced that they were not
going to keep the entire archive, just the recent stuff. They
were going to toss the rest into the great bit bucket in the sky.

There was a public outcry, and Google gave in and put the whole
archive online. But it was basically a business decision.
Under other circumstances or management they could make a
different business decision.

Maybe Google will still be in business for a hundred years. Or
maybe not. Who would have thought that the technology giant RCA
would dry up and wither away? But even if they're still here,
and still offering newsgroup access, and still maintaining an
archive, will they archive all groups? They pick and choose now.
If prostate cancer is cured in ten years, will old postings from
a.s.c.p be on Google twenty years from now? Or will our postings
and our fellowship fade away along with our bodies?

Alan