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!