Response of the
Genetics Society of America to
the "NIH Draft Proposal for
Enhanced Public Access to NIH
Research Information."
The Genetics
Society of America (GSA),
founded in 1933, currently
represents over 3000
professional geneticists. The
Society publishes the journal
GENETICS, one of the leading
journals in the field since
1916. Thus, the GSA's interest
in NIH's proposed open access
guidelines comes from two
directions: as a publisher, and
as a representative of research
scientists, many of whom depend
on NIH funding for their
research.
The GSA supports
the fullest possible open access
of scientific publications
compatible with a sustainable
financial plan for the journal.
Our journal GENETICS has one of
the most liberal open access
policies: manuscripts are made
freely available via the
internet within a few days of
their acceptance for
publication; published papers
are made freely available 3
months after they appear in
print. And all articles ever
published in the journal are
freely available online. Thus,
the GSA has a record of
supporting open access
publishing.
While the GSA in
general is supportive of the
intent of the NIH proposal for
open access of publications, we
have four significant concerns
about the proposal:
The plan
could cause confusion in the
published literature by
causing the archiving of
different versions of
published manuscripts.
NIH's proposal does not
require that the author's
version of the paper be
replaced by the final
published version, leaving
the possibility of having
two different versions of
the paper in the archive. We
strongly urge that this
deficiency be repaired.
The
proposed plan could lead to
increased publishing costs
to authors and journals, and
could reduce authors'
productivity. Who will
pay for implementing the
proposal? Will the journals
be responsible for
transmitting the article to
PMC in the proper format? If
so, the cost the publisher
would incur to do this would
need to be recovered
(especially for Society
publishers, who work with a
thin profit margin). The
publisher is likely to pass
the costs on to the authors,
reducing the funds available
for research (or forcing NIH
to increase the level of
funding). Making authors
responsible for this could
place an onerous burden on
them, and is likely to
reduce their productivity.
We believe PMC should be
responsible for the cost of
acquiring the article in
proper format.
The plan
leads to duplication of
effort. Articles
published in our journal (GENETICS)
are freely available on our
web site (as unedited
manuscripts) within a few
days of their acceptance for
publication. Displaying the
same manuscript on PMC is a
duplication of effort. We
suggest it is more efficient
for PMC simply to obtain
from the journal the final
published version of
articles appearing in
journals such as ours that
provide open access within 6
months of publication.
PMC may not
be able to serve as a true
archive. The online
archive that will replace
the printed one that has
served us well will need to
be stable and accessible in
perpetuity (a very long
time, indeed). Based on our
recent interactions with PMC,
we are concerned about the
ability of PMC to
effectively carry out the
proposal. Also, we find
ominous the report that more
than half of the data from
the Mariner Mars missions
cannot be accessed. We fear
the same situation could
ensue with papers archived
in PMC. We are especially
concerned that funding for
the archive (PMC) will not
be sufficient or stable,
since it will rely on
continuing support from the
NIH and, ultimately,
Congress.
The GSA urges NIH
officials to address these
issues before implementing their
plan for open access of
publications resulting from NIH-funded
research.
Sincerely,
Mark Johnston,
President, GSA
Elizabeth Jones,
Editor-in-Chief, GENETICS |