The Emerging Open Access Policy Framework in the United States
- 1. The Emerging Open Access Policy Framework in the United States Heather Joseph Execu@ve Director, SPARC Berlin 11 Open Access Conference November 19, 2013
- 2. Drivers
- 3. Annual Federal Government investment of ~US$60 billion on basic and applied scien@fic research.
- 4. Expecta@on that new ideas will be generated, new discoveries will be uncovered, and our collec@ve understanding of the world and our interac@ons with it will be enhanced.
- 5. This can only happen if we can access and use the results of this research.
- 6. Working theory is that policies that encourage open access to the results of this research will accelerate and significantly improve expected outcomes.
- 7. • S@mulate new ideas • Accelerate scien@fic discovery • Improve educa@onal outcomes • Fuel innova@on • Grow the economy/create jobs • Improve the welfare of the public
- 8. The U.S. increasingly recognizes the need to create a policy framework that supports all stakeholders in a transi@on to a more open system of sharing research results.
- 9. Precedent
- 10. Sources of U.S. Informa7on Policy • Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. 105) • Freedom of Informa@on Act • Paperwork Reduc@on Act • Electronic FOIA Amendments, 1996 • Gov’t Paperwork Elimina@on Act • Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-‐130
- 11. “…Government informa2on is a valuable na2onal resource, and… the economic benefits to society are maximized when government informa2on is available in a 2mely and equitable manner to all.” -‐OMB Circular A-‐130
- 12. “Open and unrestricted access to public informa2on at no more than the cost of dissemina2on..” -‐ OMB Circular A-‐130
- 13. “Governments would boost innova@on and get a becer return on their investment in publicly funded research by making research findings more widely available…. And by doing so, they would maximize social returns on public investments.” -‐-‐ Interna2onal Organiza2on for Economic Coopera2on and Development, 2005
- 14. Policy Focus & Key Milestones
- 15. Public is en@tled to access and use the results of research their tax dollars pay for.
- 16. Results = Ar@cles & Data
- 17. Taken about a decade for policies suppor@ng this statement to be developed, adopted and implemented.
- 18. Started with one U.S. Agency.
- 19. The U.S. Na@onal Ins@tutes of Health funds ~US$30 billion in basic and applied biomedical research each year – roughly half of the total U.S. annual research investment.
- 20. July 2004
- 21. “The Commicee is very concerned that there is insufficient public access to reports and data resul@ng from NIH-‐funded research. This situa@on, which has been exacerbated by the drama@c rise in scien@fic journal subscrip@on prices, is contrary to the best interests of the U.S. taxpayers who paid for this research…” -‐U.S. House Appropria7ons Commi>ee, 2004
- 22. “The Commicee is aware of a proposal to make ar@cles generated by NIH-‐ funded research available on PubMed Central (PMC). The Commicee supports this proposal and recommends that NIH develop a policy requiring that an electronic copy of manuscripts repor@ng work supported by NIH be provided to PMC.”
- 23. NIH subsequently piloted a voluntary Open Access policy for 3 years (2004-‐2007)
- 24. “The NIH shall request that all inves@gators funded by the NIH submit to the Na@onal Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-‐reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publica@on, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months aner the official date of publica@on.”
- 25. Key Policy Components: • “Green” Policy – silent on “Gold” • Covers Authors final manuscripts • Deposit upon acceptance in journal • Embargo period of author’s choice (0-‐12 months) • Largely silent on reuse right
- 26. Less than 5% of eligible researchers complied with “request.”..”
- 27. January 2008
- 28. “The NIH shall require that all inves@gators funded by the NIH submit to the Na@onal Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-‐reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publica@on, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months aner the official date of publica@on.” -‐Consolidated Appropria@ons Act, 2008
- 29. 2008-‐2013
- 30. • Over 2.9 million full text ar@cles • Accessed by over 1 million unique users each day • ~ 2/3rds of users come from outside of academe. • Compliance rate is over 80% • Costs 1/100th of 1% of NIH’s overall opera@ng budget to implement.
- 31. 5 Years of Data from NIH Informed considera@on of addi@onal Open Access Policies in the U.S….
- 32. …But not without extensive debate/discussion.
- 33. • Extensive public comment sessions • Congressional “Roundtable” convened • Interagency Working Group convened • Briefings, hearings, stakeholder mee@ngs held
- 34. • Acempts to overturn/prohibit expansion of NIH Policy • Fair Copyright in Research Works Act (2006, 2008) • Research Works Act (2011) • Acempts to extend NIH Policy • Federal Research Public Access Act (2006, 2010) • Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (2013)
- 35. Current Landscape Open Government Direc@ve
- 36. In February 2013, The Obama Administra@on issued an Execu@ve Direc@ve suppor@ng expansion of NIH-‐like policies to all other U.S. federal science agencies.
- 37. “The Obama Administra@on is commiced to the proposi@on that ci@zens deserve access to the results of scien@fic research their tax dollars have paid for… ” -‐ Dr. John Holdren, U.S. Presiden2al Science Advisor
- 38. “Public access policies will accelerate scien@fic breakthroughs and innova@on, promote entrepreneurship and enhance economic growth and job crea@on…” -‐Dr. John Holdren, U.S. Presiden2al Science Advisor
- 39. Direc@ve applies to ~20 U.S. Federal Agencies and Departments
- 40. Direc@ve applies to both ar@cles and data.
- 41. Ar@cles
- 42. • “Green” policy – silent on “Gold” • Repository can be maintained or approved by agency • Covers final manuscripts *or* published ar@cles • Requires enabling ar@cles to be read, downloaded and analyzed in digital form.
- 43. • Uses 12 month embargo as “guideline” • Provides mechanism for stakeholders to change embargo • Requires metadata standards to ensure interoperability • Requests supplemental data/link • Requires long term preserva@on strategy
- 44. Data
- 45. Open Data Execu@ve Order
- 46. • Maximize access • Protect privacy/confiden@ality and proprietary interests • Balance costs/benefits of long term preserva@on • Require researcher-‐driven data management plans
- 47. Agency dran plans submiced to WH in August, and three primary compliance op@ons have emerged: -‐ NIH-‐like model (“PubFed”) -‐ Publisher-‐maintained solu@on (CHORUS) -‐ University/Library partnership (SHARE)
- 48. Lots of room for interpreta@on.
- 49. Addi@onally, direc@ve is a regula@on, not legisla@on.
- 50. Much of the ac@vity in U.S. now (and for the forseeable future) is centered around interpreta2on, implementa2on and codifica2on of the White House Direc@ve.
- 51. -‐ FASTR (codify direc@ve, shorten embargo to 6 months, add explicit guidance on licensing -‐ PAPS (codify direc@ve essen@ally as stands) -‐ FIRST (codify direc@ve, extend embargo 2-‐3 years, remove deposit requirement) New Federal Legisla7on Proposed
- 52. -‐ Illinois (Signed into law, 8/2013) -‐ California (Passed Assembly, vote due in Senate, 1/2014) -‐ New York (Pending first vote) New State Legisla7on Proposed
- 53. All three proposed State bills are built on the framework employed by NIH Policy and FASTR, and are complimentary with the WH Direc@ve.
- 54. First @me that the U.S. has had ac@ve, coordinated Open Access policy proposals in play at Execu@ve Branch level, in Congress, and on States Level...
- 55. …All based on one consistent, focused framework.