Date post: | 04-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | philippa-harmon |
View: | 221 times |
Download: | 3 times |
Holly Phillips, MLIS, MSErinn Aspinall, MSI
Philip Kroth, MD, MS
MLA 2007Philadelphia, PA
5/21/2007
The NIH Public Access Policy at UNM:
Sparking a Revolutionary Change in Research Culture
and Practice
2 of 22
Overview
• NIH Public Access Policy
• UNM Policy Participation
• UNM Policy Knowledge and Attitudes
• UNM HSLIC Response
• Conclusions
3 of 22
NIH Public Access Policy
• Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting from NIH-Funded Research (the Policy)
• The Policy requests that NIH funded investigators submit their final, peer-reviewed, published manuscripts to PubMed Central (PMC) within six months of publication
4 of 22
NIH Policy Task Force
• Established to determine:– Submission rates of NIH-funded investigators at UNM– Factors impacting participation rates
• Goal/Outcome:– To develop recommendations and an action plan for
HSLIC support of the Policy
5 of 22
Policy Participation Rates
100E
DPMC P
PR
Kroth, PJ, Aspinall, EE, Phillips HE. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Policy on Enhancing Public Access: Tracking institutional contribution rates. J Med Libr Assoc. 2006;94(3):279-83.
• Task force developed a Contribution Rate Formula based on a PubMed query to measure the proportion of eligible papers submitted to PMC
• Used to gather baseline statistics to measure impact of future Policy-based interventions
6 of 22
Contribution Rate Results
• The national contribution rate is 12.8%– 3.0% reflects author-submitted articles
• UNM’s contribution rate is 8.7%– 1.1% reflects author-submitted articles
7 of 22
UNM Policy Knowledge and Attitudes
• Baseline statistics show low UNM contribution rate
• Task force charged with determining: – Awareness of Policy by NIH-funded investigators – Perceived barriers to participation– Resources/assistance HSLIC can offer to support Policy
participation at UNM
• Survey developed to gather relevant information from NIH-funded investigators at UNM
8 of 22
Survey Methods
• Identified all (128) investigators at UNM who received NIH funding during FY 2003-2005
• Developed questionnaire to assess knowledge, acceptance, perceived barriers to compliance with the Policy and interest in library-based assistance
• Distributed paper questionnaire investigators June-July, 2006
9 of 22
Survey Results: Demographics (1 of 2)
• 49% response rate (63/128)• 68% from School of Medicine
School/College Affiliation* Percent School of Medicine 68% No Answer 18% Arts and Sciences 10% College of Nursing 2% College of Pharmacy 2% * All percentages rounded up
10 of 22
Survey Results: Demographics (2 of 2)
• Faculty Rank– Tenured (75%)– Non-Tenured + Non-Tenure Track (19%)
• Number of NIH Grants as Principle Investigator– 1-3 (49%) – 4-6 (27%)– 7 or more (16%)
• Number of manuscripts from NIH-funded research since Policy start date (May 2, 2005)– 1-3 (38%)– 4-6 (32%)– 7 or more (16%)
11 of 22
Survey Results: Awareness
• 64% of investigators are aware of the Policy
Aware of the Policy* Percent Yes 64% No 26% Not Sure 9% No Answer 2% * All percentages rounded up
12 of 22
Survey Results: Intent
• Only 30% say they intend to deposit next eligible manuscript
Intend to Submit Next Eligible Manuscript* Percent Yes 30% No 32% Not Sure 35% No Answer 3% * All percentages rounded up
13 of 22
Survey Results: Barriers (1 of 2)
• 55% cite copyright, manuscript access & Policy knowledge as top barriers
Top Barriers Preventing Manuscript Submission* Percent Don’t Know Copyright/ No Manuscript Access 30% Don’t Know Enough about the Policy 25% Other 14% No Time 11% Does Not Contribute to Promotion/ Tenure 5% No Departmental Support for this Effort 2% * All percentages rounded up
14 of 22
Results: Barriers (2 of 2)
• Top Barriers: Other (14%) comments
– “This doubles our workload…why doesn’t NIH solve this directly with the journals/publishers.”
– “Most publishers preclude authors from submitting the final pdf … in effect generating two different versions of the same publication.”
– “I don’t care.”
– “Don’t know where to start.”
15 of 22
Survey Results: Assistance (1 of 3)
• 64% expressed interest in library consultative service
Interest in Library Consultative Service* Percent Strongly Agree 16% Agree 48% Disagree 22% Strongly Disagree 10% * All percentages rounded up
16 of 22
Survey Results: Assistance (2 of 3)
• 57% seek copyright management, manuscript access & administrative support
Top Types of Library Assistance Preferred* Percent Copyright Management/ Manuscript Access 29% Administrative Support for Submission 28% Workshop/ Seminar 17% Recognition for Tenure/ Promotion 9% Other 7% Support from Dean/ Chair 3% * All percentages rounded up
17 of 22
Survey Results: Assistance (3 of 3)
• Assistance Type: Other (7%) comments
– “Something simple to describe how to do this.”
– “15-20 min web-based course that I can take on my own time and contact info for person to assist in the process.”
– “Need somebody else to do it for me.”
18 of 22
Survey Results: Conclusions (1 of 2)
• Respondents were tenured faculty (75%), with extensive NIH PI experience (43% >4 grants), who are working on one or more (86%) papers resulting from NIH research
• Awareness of the NIH Policy is fairly high (64%)
• Many (57%) may submit eligible manuscripts
19 of 22
• There are significant barriers to participation including copyright (30%) and Policy knowledge (25%)
• Many (64%) express desire for library assistance, particularly in copyright/manuscript access (29%) and in assistance with manuscript submission (28%)
Survey Results: Conclusions (2 of 2)
20 of 22
HSLIC NIH Task Force Response
• Drafted recommendations:– Promotion
• Local: UNM Scholarly Communication Symposium• National: SGIM and AMIA Conferences
– Education• Clinical and Translational Sciences Center
– Masters of Science in Clinical Research– Services
• HSLIC Strategic Plan: Scholarly Communication Support Center
• Monitor UNM progress with Contribution Rate Formula
21 of 22
Lessons for Librarians
• Posting work to repositories is not yet viewed as part of the authoring process and is often seen as extra work
• Libraries can encourage and train authors to:– Think about benefits of open access (more exposure!)
– Actively manage their copyright (it can be done!)
– Post their work (it doesn’t take long!)
– Become agents of change in their fields (quality will become better!)
– Be better citizens of the world (the world does not end at our border!)
22 of 22
Thank you!