The Open Forum began with a brief introduction given by Hope Barton, Chair of MLA’s Governmental Relations Committee.  She announced that the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA, sponsored by Representatives Cornyn and Lieberman in 2006) may be re-introduced to Congress.  This bill will extend public access to research from funding from the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Transportation.  <http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/frpaa/index.shtml>

David Gillikin, Chief of the Bibliographic Services Division of the NLM, gave a brief update on the NIH Public Access Policy and indicated that NIH views this as an educational year, when authors and institutions are learning about the process. He discussed some statistics for the PubMed Central Manuscript submission process, including: 56 percent of the submissions are completed within one month of article publication and 93 percent of the submissions are completed within three months.  He also shared this graph, indicating the steady increase in the number of submissions to PubMedCentral.

Monthly Aggregate Submission Statistics

Dr. Neil Thakur, point person from the NIH for the Public Access Policy, then spoke by videocast <http://publicaccess.nih.gov/PublicAccess_MLA_Q&A_5-09_small.wmv>.
He made a number of important points that helped clarify issues that have arisen within the manuscript submission process.  First, institutions and Principal Investigators (PIs) are responsible for manuscript submission.  Second, if errors are found in the article, there are two ways to handle them:

• for the published version of the journal article, the PI should work with the publisher to make corrections–these are usually published as errata

• for errors with the PMC manuscript version, contact the NIHMS Help Desk <http://nihms.nih.gov/db/sub.cgi?page=email&from=home>.

In both cases, the original PMCID# will be retained after corrections.

There are 4 methods for submitting an article to PMC, depending on the specific journal or publisher policy:

A.    The published version is submitted by the publisher automatically without author involvement.
B.    The published version is submitted by the publisher by arrangement with the author – there is often a cost associated with this method.
C.    Author (or designee) deposits manuscript.
D.    Publisher deposits manuscript but author must approve version and format it to finish the process.

If a manuscript is submitted through the NIH Manuscript Submission System (NIHMS) and a PMC reference number is not yet available, use the NIH Manuscript Submission System reference number (NIHMSID) instead for progress reports, applications, or proposals.  If an article is published in a journal whose publisher deposits all NIH-funded final published articles in PMC without author involvement, or if the author makes arrangements to have a publisher deposit the final, published article in PMC (Methods A or B, respectively), a PMCID might not be assigned until several weeks after publication.  During this time, signify compliance with the policy by indicating “PMC Journal – In Process” at the end of a citation to the article. <http://publicaccess.nih.gov/FAQ.htm>  Authors are not permitted to state “PMC Journal – In Process” for Methods C or D.

Issues seem to be developing with option D. If an author does not have the NIHMSID, the paper is most likely out of compliance and the worst thing to do in this situation is to say that it is in compliance.  This is a serious issue. It is the responsibility of the institution and the PI to get the number. If you are not submitting the manuscript yourself (for example, if you are a co-author affected by methods C or D), you can obtain the NIHMSID by: asking the corresponding author, the publisher, or the NIHMS Help desk via their website link: http://publicaccess.nih.gov/contact.htm.  Problems with Method D can be avoided by a discussion among the authors and perhaps also the publisher before the paper is submitted. One of the central pieces of advice given was for NIH-funded authors to consider the following with regard to this new policy when submitting a work to a journal for peer review:

• What submission method will be used?
• What version of the work will be posted to PMC?
• Who will submit the work?
• When will it be submitted?
• Who will approve the submission?
• When can the paper be made available for public viewing on PMC?

NIH reports that often the publisher has indeed submitted the manuscript and an email has been sent to the corresponding author; however, that author has not responded by completing the submission process.  NIH cannot and will not negotiate with the publishers. The author entered into an agreement with a third party and NIH is not party to those agreements. The NIH suggests talking to the corresponding authors, talking to the publisher about options, or talking with your institution’s office of sponsored research and say, “I am having trouble meeting the terms and conditions of my award and I need your help to resolve this issue.”

There have been instances when the publisher did not submit the manuscript in a timely fashion.  What is the PI to do under those circumstances?  The NIH recommends contacting the publisher.  In some cases in the past, the solution was to cancel Method D and instead use Method C, in which the author or designee handles the submission completely.  In this case, the publisher had to grant the author permission to make the deposit. This situation is occurring less often.

Another misunderstanding, about identifying PMCIDs on grant applications and reports, was discussed. You do not have to include the PMCID for papers that are not authored by one of the PIs or arise from one of their awards.  PIs must identify all applicable articles that arose from their NIH award and must identify them with their PMCIDs . An application with multiple PIs must identify PMCIDs from all PIs.  However, authors do not have to identify PMCIDs for other articles that they cite in a bibliography or in references.

Following the videocast by Dr. Thakur, Ms. Barton and Mr. Gillikin were joined by others: Karen Albert, Chair, MLA Ad Hoc Committee for Advocating Scholarly Communication (and a Chapter member); Senior Director for Education and Information Services at Fox Chase Cancer Center; Gretchen Arnold, Director and Associate Dean, University of Virginia, Claude Moore Health Sciences Library; and Pat Thibodeau, Associate Dean for Library Services, Duke Medical Center Library.  The panel answered questions from the audience:

• Pat Thibodeau tried to express the frustration of PIs and librarians with publishers not submitting in a timely fashion.  However, David Gillikin was adamant that NIH could not intercede. He suggested that most of the problems encountered during the submission process are due to authors not following up with the two-step author approval process after publisher submission associated with Method D.

• One of the panelists reminded researchers to submit non-Medline indexed journal articles to PMC.  An example was given of an NIH-funded, peer reviewed research article published in an Irish folklore publication.

• The PMID-to-PMCID converter functionality has been expanded: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/pmctopmid>

• There was a discussion about comparing NIH-funded articles from an institution as identified in a Medline search with PubMed Central submissions from the same institution to determine compliance.  David Gillikin indicated that since not all NIH-funded papers are included in PubMed, there would be no way to accurately determine compliance.  Also, it would not be possible to identify those manuscripts “in process” and those embargoed.

Related Resource:
NLM Theater presentations offered at the Exhibit Booth at MLA 2009
”PubMed Central and NIH Public Access Update”
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/dist_edu.html#m

Marie FitzSimmons, MS, AHIP
Assistant Librarian, Reference
George T. Harrell Health Sciences Library
Hershey Medical Center
Penn State University College of Medicine
mfitzsimmons@hmc.psu.edu

• Make electronic versions of peer-reviewed articles publicly available via the Internet within 6 months of the original publication date, and
• Preserve the manuscripts in a stable digital repository maintained by the agency or in another suitable digital repository that permits free public access. Each document will be freely available to users free of charge within six months after it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

A copy of the legislation can be found at http://www.thomas.gov and entering S 1373 in the search bill summary and status box

Take Action Now:

Phone calls are recommended, but you may also e-mail your member of Congress this information.  Find your Senator and their contact information by going to www.senate.gov and selecting ‘Senators’ from the top left. Ask for the staff member that handles health care issues.

• Emphasize that the MLA and AAHSL strongly support this legislation because public access to health information is vital to a healthy nation and improved medical research. Let them know that expanding public access will also preserve health information for generations to come.

• Tell the staff member that S. 1373 will augment the effect of federal dollars through better patient care due to the increase of timely medical information. MLA believes that S 1373-The Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009 enables researchers to realize new discoveries more quickly and encourages a more open exchange of information amongst researchers. Strongly stress these points when you call.

• Thank them for their time and ask them to update you on any actions they take due to your request (leave your information). If you are transferred to their voicemail, be sure to include the above points and your contact information.

Issued by Information Issues and Policy Office, Medical Library Association

Health and Medicine Counsel of Washington reports that yesterday evening the Senate passed the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations package by voice vote. This spending measure increases the annual budgets for many federal health and education programs. Upon enactment, the National Institutes of Health will receive a $938 million funding increase to bring the agency’s total level of support up to $30.3 billion. President Barack Obama has indicated he will sign the legislation. In the next few days, our Washington representatives will send us funding details for NLM and various health programs and initiatives.

Please see the Washington Post article [here] for additional details. We will provide a more comprehensive analysis of the FY 2009 funding for federal health programs in the near future.

From the Medical Library Association Information Issues and Policy Coordinator:

ACTION ALERT

Ensure passage of the FY 2009 omnibus appropriations package and
increase federal public health funding.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) has expressed concern that there are not enough votes yet in the Senate to pass the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 1105). He also has indicated that if the Senate does not approve the omnibus tonight, Congress will extend the continuing resolution (CR) through the remainder of FY 2009. The CR is presently level-funding federal public health initiatives at their FY 2008 level.

The omnibus package currently contains a $938 million funding increase for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as well as funding increases for other public health agencies and initiatives. Unlike stimulus funding which is a one-time infusion, this funding increase would raise the annual baseline budgets for NIH and the other public health agencies.

Please contact your senators today and urge them to support the FY 2009 omnibus appropriations package.

In order to ensure that the omnibus has sufficient votes in the Senate to move forward, please:

• Lookup the contact information for your two senators by going to www.senate.gov and selecting your state from the list.
• Call your senators’ Washington, DC office and ask to speak with the Health LA (you will likely receive their voicemail).
• Ask your Senator to “please vote in support of the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill.”
• Tell them your personal story and inform them of your interest in NIH and funding for federal public health programs.
• Inform them that the increased funding for NIH and other federal health agencies is critical, and that the agencies would not benefit from a year-long continuing resolution.
• Leave your contact information so that the senator’s staff can get back to you.

Be persistent and follow-up, Congressional staff are very busy, but if they understand this issue is important to their constituents, they will make it a priority to speak with you and fulfill your request.

[update: it passed]

Included in this Omnibus package is the FY 2009 Labor-HHS-Educations Appropriations bill. Currently, most Federal health and education programs are funded at their FY 2008 levels by a continuing resolution (CR) that will expire on March 6. Recognizing that the CR is set to expire, it is likely that appropriators will work to advance this legislation in the near future. Below are the preliminary details on the funding within this package.

The National Institutes of Health would be funded at $30.3 billion, a $938 million funding increase over FY 2008. If Congress doles out the FY 2009 appropriations dollars in a manner proportional to the NIH budget (standard procedure), NLM would receive about $10 million. This would bring its FY 2009 budget up to about $340 million total.

Dr. Raynard Kington, the Acting Director of the National Institutes of Health held a briefing regarding how the NIH intends to use the $10.4 billion. He stressed two points repeatedly during his briefing. 1) Thank you health advocates! 2) This infusion of funds must demonstrate both short and long-term positive impacts on the economy. Any funds that are provided through grants or other mechanism will be very closely tracked for appropriate usage and their affect on areas like job creation.

He also pointed out that these funds will only be available for two years, so NIH will only be funding projects which can demonstrate significant gains in that time period. He also made the point that these funds will be forward-looking and not necessarily used to fill in the areas of the NIH budget which have received cuts. However, each Institute and Center Director will be evaluating their programs and deciding on the best candidates for a two year infusion of funds, and these may be programs which had received funding cuts in the past.

Dr. Kington specifically identified the following three areas as candidates to receive the bulk of the NIH supplemental funding (no details or dollar amounts were provided):

1.   Meritorious R01s that have been highly scored, but not yet funded, will be reviewed, and  those research projects which could be advanced within a two year time frame will be given preferential consideration for funding. He went on to state that given the uniqueness of the  situation, research projects will not be selected formulaically.
2.  Some existing grants will be supplemented through competitive or administrative  mechanisms.
3.  NIH will initiate a Challenge Grant program to fund cross-cutting research projects that can be completed within two years. A new RFA will be issued in the near future and the peer-review process will be completed in an abridged manner considering the time constraints.

Health Aid to States
One of the areas of the stimulus package is $87.1 billion for Health Aid to States with Medicaid costs. This increases the federal government’s contribution for Medicaid costs to help states close their budget gaps. Pennsylvanians may want to review Governor Rendell’s proposed PA Budget for 2009 (9MB pdf). See pages A3:27-31 (starts on page 92 of the pdf) for the health care overview.

Report based on Medical Library Association Information Issues and Policy Committee.