![NIH Public Access Policy Defined ,[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
Similaire à Mla Nih 2009 Final
Similaire à Mla Nih 2009 Final (20)
Plus de Marcus Banks
Plus de Marcus Banks (11)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Mla Nih 2009 Final
- 1. Impact of the NIH Public Access Policy: A Unique Opportunity to Engage with Faculty About Open Access Publishing. Marcus Banks, David J. Owen and Gail Persily UC San Francisco Library and CKM Medical Library Association meeting, Honolulu May 2009
- 4. What a Difference a Mandate Makes Source: http://www.nihms.nih.gov/stats/
Notes de l'éditeur
- 12/07/09
- 12/07/09 GAIL suggests we delete this slide. Assume audience knows this already PMC seen as a stable long-term digital repository. For many years built content voluntarily, but NIH policy definitely raised PMC’s profile. Official PDF not required, as this has publisher branding. Word docs are sufficient for terms of policy, although many publishers facilitate deposit of their own PDFs. 12 month embargo is a compromise between the interests of librarians (who often advocate for short or no embargos) and publishers (who would seek a longer embargo and/or the ability to establish their own embargo periods without a government mandate.) Copyright law—Key educational point for faculty is that they own the copyrights on their articles until they sign it over; and that copyright is a collection of rights which they can parcel out in negotiations with publishers.
- 12/07/09 --Estimated deposit rate in voluntary period: 5% (NLM Public Access Working Group--http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/nihfaq.htm) --Goals: Point here is that it’s a compromise between competing interests --Similar mandates: Wellcome Trust, European Commission (many others: http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/)
- 12/07/09 Resnag this image so that there is not so much white space on the right and graph can be larger? Add arrow when became mandatory; if available, find % of increase/compliance. Source: http://www.nihms.nih.gov/stats/index.shtml
- 12/07/09 --Average 1 or 2 questions per month: Email/phone. Not inundated, but steady trickle.
- 12/07/09 Methods: Survey has 9 questions Conducted interviews as well as survey. Felt interviews would give us greater understanding of faculty perspective and weren’t sure how many people would actually take the survey.
- 12/07/09 Other interesting data: 100% of those who had received a grant in the past year said they were aware of the concept of OA. They were 50/50 on considering OA when selecting where to publish.
- 12/07/09 Most of our faculty were aware of the policy. The information from NIH and C&G seemed to get their attention. They know about the policy, but they don’t necessarily know a lot about how it came about and the broader issues. After only one year, it is too soon for faculty to see much of an impact, but there were a few who indicated that they have already noticed increased access. When asking about the positives and the negatives of the policy, we received many more responses regarding the positives. They would seem to outweigh the negatives in our researchers’ minds. NOTE: 80% of people did it themselves; researchers tend to be very independent.
- 12/07/09 The problem of all survey research, alas. Randomized controlled trials are much more powerful and exponentially harder to conduct. Survey wording influence: e.g. may have been a factor in the positives vs. negatives questions. Maybe we left out an important negative that would have drawn a large response. N=200 a larger response rate than we expected, but survey went to N~7,500 (2.67% response rate). Self-selected respondents; likely a biased group. Survey wording of multiple choice options may have influenced results