The Future of Electronic Journals - - Opinions & Insights

Each Member of The Science Advisory Board who participated in this study was invited to comment on the following question:

"The NIH has adopted a policy in which they request that all papers published with research funding from the NIH be submitted to the NIH once the peer review process is complete. The papers would then appear in NIH's online public archive, PubMed Central, 6 months after they are published. Do you agree with this policy? Why or why not?"

The responses, which have been edited for grammar and clarity, appear below along with each respondent's first name, job position, and geographic region.

"Peer reviewed" journals are publishing businesses. The choice of "peers" to review an article is often a random event related more to the network of contacts of the journal's board than to the competencies of the reviewer. Peer review (by one - three scientists per MS) does not guarantee good science, but eliminates some bad work and/or writing. Open publication onto the Internet exposes all work to scrutiny. It will be a simple matter to incorporate online evaluation and "voting" on the technical merits of a paper. Voting rights could be restricted to members of scientific associations. However science is in the public interest, and public access and voting through a separate public forum for each manuscript is a good idea. Publication is about communication of science, not about the continuation of publishing paradigms that date back to the 18th century.
Dale, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Australasia/Pacific

6 months is a reasonable policy.
Keith, Staff Scientist, North America

6 months is partly acceptable time. For articles in very fast developing areas, 6 months is far too long.
Duska, Principal Investigator, Europe

A step in the right direction, but not far enough: 6 months is too long a waiting period. Also, PubMed Central doesn't offer download/viewing of full-text articles (as far as I know), so this policy doesn't really help to disseminate the actual research results, it only advertises them.
Mike, Professor/Teacher, North America

Absolutely agree, especially when the research and page charges are paid for with taxpayers' money, the taxpayers should have access.
Jonathan, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Africa

Absolutely agree. Publicly funded research should be RAPIDLY accessible to the public. Access and expeditious publishing assist with an improved scientific enterprise in our rapidly changing society!
James, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Absolutely! The best way we as scientists can have access to information and share our research with the world is to have the government provide free access. This makes online journal searching faster and more scientist friendly. I think it is the next step in scientific information disbursement!
Jamie, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

Absolutely, it should be placed in public domain for the continuing dissemination of scientific information.
Carlos, Physician, Central/South America

Absolutely. As most published research is publicly funded and made by the authors, the public should have free access. However, to maintain peer reviewed quality papers and international distribution, a grace period of 6 months is adequate and more that sufficient to sustain subscribers within the field to pay the costs of the publishers involved. But this should not proceed as a "high profit" business area for publishers on the expense of the research community and society in general .
Steen, Principal Investigator, Europe

Absolutely. Government funded (or partially funded) studies are done at taxpayer expense and should be fully accessible. One of the beauties of PubMed searching is finding great, informative abstracts -- and, when that fails, great, free, full-text articles to answer clinical questions.
Gary, Physician, North America

Absolutely. It should be mandatory for all research funded by government bodies, charities and non-commercial organizations, to be freely accessed to everyone after a fixed period of time.
Jimmy, Department Head, Europe

Actually, I don't care it at all. I'm a Chinese, how could I apply for NIH funding? Since I can't get support from NIH, why should I care it? For American, it's a very good thing. People will know who can get NIH support as a famous researcher. And we can download the articles easily directly from PubMed. But, in bioinformatics region, after 6 months, the article will not be news but history for us. Usually, I only read free access articles. Our University ordered some top journals and we can read it as soon as they appear online. My colleagues and friends of I prefer to read the most recent articles (at most 1-2 months). We rarely read many articles half year ago, unless we should start a new project or writing the paper.
Yu, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Asia

Agree as the research that made the publication possible is paid for by the NIH/public money.
Erik, Staff Scientist, Europe

Agree we readers will benefit from it. However, the publisher not.
Deidei, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Asia

Agree with the NIH view.....as the research funding is being done by them....In that case NIH offer a platform to represent all the therapeutic / research areas.
Sandeep, IS Manager/Specialist, Asia

Agree, many researchers do not have the possibility to gain access to all journals they are interested in, mostly this is due to shortage of money for library services.
Gabriele, Principal Investigator, Europe

Agree, most reasonable thing to do.
Ming, Physician, North America

Agree, open access, although a bit delayed.
Olavi, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Agree. I do believe it is fair process.
Inese, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

Agree. I think the public needs to know the latest information in their field of interest, so that they can be active participants in the scientific and clinical decision making processes.
Prasad, Department Head, North America

Agree. It makes data available to all quickly.
Laurence, Physician, North America

Agree. Public access to scientific knowledge is good.
Eddy, Professor/Teacher, North America

Agree. Public funding of research should require an accountability by the researcher via a transparent availability of their findings once peer-reviewed.
Stephen, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Agree. Results from publicly funded research should be publicly available free-of-charge to anyone interested, following a reasonable period of time (to allow for publishing entities to recoup reasonable publication and distribution-related costs).
Steve, Principal Investigator, North America

Agree. Will help to widespread knowledge quickly.
Josep, Physician, Europe

Agree; thought authors could specify shorter or longer times. Especially necessary when study is NIH-funded.
Samuel, Staff Scientist, North America

As a researcher in the third world I would be very happy with this policy since it will mean free access to a number of high quality papers. I can understand that the NIH has a 'proprietary' interest in ensuring dissemination of scientific information that was obtained through their financial support.
Balakrishnan, Professor/Teacher, Asia

As a student I think it is beneficial, since we cannot afford to subscribe to journals. Being able to access the latest peer reviewed publications will be highly informative, although in cases of journals that do have free access articles, it may not be of much use.
Madhavi, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

As the NIH is funding the research project, it is only appropriate that they would like to have it in their online public archive.
Aparna, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

Because NIH supports research financially via public funds, I think it is reasonable for it to share the research information achieved from the grants it has given.
Theodosia, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Asia

Certainly I agree with the abovementioned policy. Knowledge should be freely and unrestricted available to everyone...
Haralabos, Staff Scientist, Europe

Disagree. Immediate publication is preferable rather than 6 months.
Cristan, Physician, Asia

Don't feel strongly one way or the other.
Kymberly, Physician, North America

Excellent idea! Fine work is done and results should be widely circulated.
Helen, Professor/Teacher, Asia

Excellent idea. Easy (preferably free at the point of access) access to research papers is the life blood of research. In the modern world, where time is condensed and deadlines short, it is essential not only to be able to obtain up-to-date information but also to obtain it quickly. Ideas have to be backed up with evidence in the same time frame.
Jackie, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Fair enough considering the hot water they have been put in over the conflicts of interest issue.
Thomas, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

For me, the choice to access an online journal is not based on the reputation of the journal, but on the content of individual articles (i.e. the relevance of an article to current research/teaching). I find the articles through PubMed, or less often, when browsing journal table of contents which are sent out by email. Faced with a large number of articles on a similar topic, I'll tend to access the higher impact journals first. A very useful feature which as far as I'm aware NEJM doesn't have, is the list of other articles in which a particular paper was cited. When browsing online journals I'm not aware of which are open access, and which I'm able access because of our institutional subscription.
Kristina, Post Doctoral Fellow, Australasia/Pacific

Freedom of information is vital in the scientific community around the world. Several important progresses are achieved within the scope of biology and biotechnology not only in the so called 'developed world' but also on the 'developing countries', meaning that the scientists that live in the 'not so developed world' should be given the opportunity to access the vital information published worldwide at low cost.
Joao, Production/Manufacturing, Europe

Generally, yes. If NIH is paying for the research, they should have the right to make it publicly available. The mechanism they propose seem reasonable.
Kevin, Professor/Teacher, North America

Good for information dissemination. Bad for journal publishers. Better to link to on-line journal content from NIH page.
Edward, Staff Scientist, North America

Good idea. If funded by the public, then the public should have easy and timely access.
Truls, Principal Investigator, North America

Great policy as long as copyright issues are arranged with the journal publishers.
Mark, Principal Investigator, North America

Great! I wish the same strategy for our European funding boards.
Schuster, Principal Investigator, Europe

Have commercial advertisers pay the cost.
Eugene, Physician, North America

I agree. Provides accessibility and timely transfer of information.
Robert, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

I agree as the policy keeps grantees accountable for the money received. Moreover, the published papers help provide insight into the type and focus of research projects being funded.
Jodie, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

I agree because it is a good resource for the research community not only to view the articles as a publicly funded project but also to find out what kind of research are being funded by the NIH.
Christina, Staff Scientist, North America

I agree because this is a valid use of public funds to acheive a diverse repository of information.
Jay, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

I agree because this way a proper reviewing of the papers by the experts will be done which is better for quality of scientific research.
Govind, Principal Investigator, Asia

I agree fully to this policy because the means helping to do the research are taken from the public. So its only just that the results are made open to the public again for free.
Nikolaus, Physician, Europe

I agree in principal but would favor an open access link to publisher site rather than having two different copies of the paper circulating!
Richard, Principal Investigator, North America

I agree in principal. NIH funds are paid for by the taxpayer, and access to publicly funded research should be available for everyone, especially to help prevent duplication of research efforts. However, there may be problems with copyright.
Janet, Principal Investigator, North America

I agree in principle that these results should be available to the public; however, I am very unclear about the ramifications this will have on the publication of articles, which is currently one of the criteria most strongly linked to academic advancement, obtaining grants, etc.
Stephen, Professor/Teacher, North America

I agree in principle with this policy. This would apparently allow greater dissemination of scientific literature to those who can least afford it and also allow for significantly greater links to information.
Thomas, Principal Investigator, North America

I agree in that it allows wider access to papers, and it links research to grants i.e. results to funding. However, it could lead to greater requirements that research done exactly reflects the content of grants, which can limit creativity and new avenues of research.
Martha, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

I agree that all papers published with NIH funding should be available to the public electronically. As long as the submissions are verified to be the actual peer-reviewed publication exactly as it appeared, I fully support this idea.
Jennifer, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

I agree the policy. Authors should transfer to their publishers all the rights to sell their papers, in paper or online, but they should retain the right to self-archive them online for free for all.
Lida, Physician, Asia

I agree this policy, as the research funding is provided by the NIH.
Vijay, Staff Scientist, Asia

I agree to this concept. Its nice NIH is releasing its content to the public and researchers open. This will help not only the poor laboratories of US alone, but also the developing countries as well.
Sundaram, Professor/Teacher, Asia

I agree with all forms of publications that ensure broad access to scientific knowledge for the public. Six month are a sufficient time gap to minimize potential losses for the journals that publish the respective articles at first. And as the funding organization NIH has a valid claim to gain access to the papers based on the research they fund.
Maria, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Europe

I agree with it mostly. I think peer review ensures what is accessed is closest to authentic as needed.
Angellah, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

I agree with it, because 1. When funding is from the NIH, then it has right to own it and 2. It is great chance to keep great amount of valuable papers "in one place".
Jan, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Europe

I agree with the policy. Since public funds are used to finance the research projects, the public should have access to the published peer-reviewed results.
Todd, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

I agree with the policy. The access to public funds through the NIH should not be completely unconditional; those willing to make use of such resources should be able to accept a policy of openness regarding their published results. For authors concerned about confidentiality and possible competitors, the 6 month delay period should provide some window of relief. If one wishes to take credit for discoveries in publishing one's data at all, one must also be prepared to accept the responsibility of giving access to all when using public funds.
Jason, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Europe

I agree with the policy. The results of federal and state funded research should be available not just to all scientists, but to all citizens.
Kathy, Principal Investigator, North America

I agree with the policy. This allows all research funded by the NIH to be grouped together so anyone can quickly review the type of work funded by the institute. It will also encourage young researches to tailor their proposals for funding of new research projects appropriately so as to obtain the much needed funds for the work.
Pearson, Staff Scientist, North America

I agree with this - forms a good, accessible resource of NIH-funded studies.
Allison, Staff Scientist, North America

I agree with this as it fosters the principle of open access. The cost of Nature subscription is prohibitive on an institutional license basis.
Miriam, Professor/Teacher, Europe

I agree with this method because it allows the submitted papers to be reviewed for accuracy and quality.
Dawn-Marie, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

I agree with this policy (although I haven't been familiar with it). NIH money to support research comes from tax money and that gives the public a right to have access to research results achieved with that money.
Stephanie, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

I agree with this policy although it is not suitable for my country.
Jorrit, Professor/Teacher, Europe

I agree with this policy as it helps to disseminate the knowledge without discrimination, especially it's a boon for the scientific community and the public in the developing counties.
Sampathkumar, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Asia

I agree with this policy as scientific findings from public funded projects should be accessible to everyone for furthering good science.
Nitin, Principal Investigator, North America

I agree with this policy because as a student PubMed Central is a very important source of articles in many journals about the topic that I am interested in at that moment.
Sita, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

I agree with this policy because the funding agency makes the research possible and should have some say about how it can be accessed to the taxpaying public.
Gabrielle, Professor/Teacher, North America

I agree with this policy because the research was funded by the NIH. The research results are vital to the researchers so that the latest work is made available to all. It could help the with the work being done by others especially young people starting in the respective fields.
Evangelina, Staff Scientist, North America

I agree with this policy, as the NIH has, after all, funded the paper in the first place. It seems common sense to me, and all safeguards of peer review being in place, a very feasible solution for the NIH's investment in the paper.
Lydia, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

I agree with this policy, due to the fact that it was their money that funded the research in the first place.
Lisa, IS Manager/Specialist, North America

I agree with this policy. All grant holders must submit copies to the NIH anyway. It is better to share them with everyone than to have them moldering in a file! Since NIH is funded with public money it is good policy to make them publicly available. (Note, I would be open to the argument that they should only be available there for 1 year, however irritating that is when I try to find older articles.)
Rona, Professor/Teacher, Europe

I agree with this policy. Because, authors and readers will access to papers without cost.
Sevgi, Professor/Teacher, Europe

I agree with this policy. Given that this research is funded with public monies it makes sense to make these findings generally available to the public. The six month delay is also applicable as a compromise with the existing scientific journal community. This allows the journals to maintain a period of exclusivity and value.
Scott, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

I agree with this policy. However, I do not quite know to what extent this will be detrimental to publishers.
Friedrich, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

I agree with this policy. In fact all scientific articles should be free access and download after six months and free access to third world countries immediately.
Simon, Staff Scientist, North America

I agree with this policy. Is very useful for scientist.
Geiza, Principal Investigator, Europe

I agree with this policy. NIH funds are public funds and the research results are public property. The author and institution where the research was conducted retains proprietary rights through patents. The information from the research should be made available freely to the public through peer reviewed publication of results.
Edwin, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

I agree with this policy. Publicly supported research should be available to the research community without additional fees. The supporting organization should pay the dissemination costs as well. Publication and dissemination cost are generally negligible in comparison to the cost of the research itself.
Gabor, Principal Investigator, Europe

I agree with this policy. Since the research was done by public funds, results should be made public.
Hideaki, Professor/Teacher, Asia

I agree with this policy. The papers should appear in PubMed earlier than after 6 months. The present system of publishing is slower and much more expensive than it needs to be.
Joseph, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

I agree with this policy. The subscriber fees for most journals are expensive and limit access to scientific information, which if government-supported, should be freely available to all members of the public.
James, Principal Investigator, Australasia/Pacific

I agree with this policy. Tracking of results from NIH grants is possible.
Jaap, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

I agree with this. I think the time process is extremely important in this issue and I agree that it should go through the channels indicated.
Susan, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

I agree with this. If the NIH has funded the research it should have significant rights to the publication of the data, especially as the NIH is a public body, using public funds, the public then have a right to see the work being carried out. The authors also have had their work published and open access can only get their work a wider audience. It would also help in the public understanding and awareness of science and the work being carried out, and help to counter the perceived 'waste' of taxpayer money to fund 'pointless' research - in the process forcing authors to make good application of their work - why it is worth doing!
Kevin, Staff Scientist, Europe

I agree with this; it will help eliminate publication bias, and greatly expand our evidence based medicine approach. It is only fair that negative studies, albeit less "sexy" and therefore less often published, be available too.
Lori, Physician, North America

I agree you have the right.
Nadia, Staff Scientist, Africa

I agree, although I do not envy the journals which have to compete with PubMed Central. Open access is a good idea, but if the state does not want taxpayers to pay twice (first as tax and then as a subscription or pay-per-view) to see the results of research, then they should provide additional money in the grants explicitly to cover the costs of publishing, and not try to impose this cost on charities (in cases where they, not the state, provide research grants).
Vladimir, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

I agree, as the NIH must have the right to publish all scientific results gained by NIH grants. A period of 6 months is sufficient to take care of the journal's financial/scientific interest.
Martin, Staff Scientist, Europe

I agree, because the data should be accurate & relevant before published.
Felicia, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

I agree, because this knowledge has to be accessible to public.
Dragan, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

I agree, but I feel that the papers that would be appearing in the NIH's online public archive, PubMed Central, should not take 6 months after they are published but a little more sooner than that.
Charisse, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

I agree, patients with knowledge make better decisions about their healthcare.
Sandy, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

I agree, since if the NIH paid for the research, papers should be available to ensure that grantees do not accidentally get funded to do research that has already been done. However, if this is not applied to all papers regardless of funding source, the search for full-text articles will become a daunting task. Perhaps corporations or private research institutions could get a small tax break to release published articles to NIH. In the long run, this won't be as much of an issue since I think many journals will adopt a "free release after a certain time" policy like ASM and others already have. If anything, by releasing articles to NIH, smaller journals that do not have the resources for online publication can allow the NIH to do that heavy lifting.
Peter, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

I agree, since NIH pay they should also have the rights to keep the records in their online public archive.
David, Staff Scientist, Europe

I agree, since the work was performed with taxpayers money.
Boris, Principal Investigator, North America

I agree, They are part of the Public domain. I would have no reservation about any paper coming out of my lab being posted.
Jose, Principal Investigator, North America

I agree, this is a very good way for rapid access to reviewed data.
Olivier, Principal Investigator, Europe

I agree. Because information should be available to most.
Marco, Staff Scientist, Europe

I agree. If NIH provides the grant, they have rights to the final work.
Joseph, Professor/Teacher, Europe

I agree. I'm from Armenia and frequently I have no opportunity to read the hard copies of the journals in the library. I use the online resources for searching the literature data very often. Therefore I find the access to online information very valuable and useful, especially if the information is new.
Margarita, Principal Investigator, Europe

I agree. In my opinion, data and its interpretation, once published, becomes part of the ongoing body of knowledge [be it scientific, historical, of an economic nature, whatever] and may be "transferred" from one human to another, verbally or in some form of writing. It thus follows that implementing the NIH's policy would be but one way of giving effect to the warehousing of this knowledge in a C21 fashion . It goes without saying that I obviously pay little respect to copyrights!
Richard, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Australasia/Pacific

I agree. In this way all the NIH founded research will be available to all scientists at no additional cost.
Concezione, Professor/Teacher, Europe

I agree. Information access is the single most powerful tool and limiting its availability does a long-term disservice to the public who funded the research.
Karen, Administrator, North America

I agree. It is important to facilitate convenient and wide access to biomedical knowledge. This can speed up research and development. Especially important from ethical perspective if information is generated using public funds.
Richard, Physician, North America

I agree. It is still not enough, but a good step towards making knowlegde freely available. Other public funds should adopt this policy.
J·nos, Principal Investigator, Europe

I agree. It will favour the dissemination of scientific knowledge. This is very relevant, especially in research concerning public health.
Alfredo, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

I agree. NIH funded research should be returned to the public as return on investment. It would also be good for the NIH to make an attempt to categorize the research in therapeutic areas for patient advocate groups to gain qualified peer-reviewed information.
Timothy, Laboratory Technician, North America

I agree. NIH should follow up on research funding from their pocket. And also the articles (resulting from the funding) should be accessible to all people.
Eduardo, Department Head, Central/South America

I agree. Open access for research funding from the NIH is a matter of reliability.
Nikolaos, Physician, Europe

I agree. The public has a right to see the results of their tax dollars. I would like to see the 6 month time period shortened. If a loved one had a particular disease and an article on treatment or rehabilitation came out 6 months too late to benefit my loved one, I would be very upset.
Virginia, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

I agree. These studies are publicly funded - and hence should be freely available to any member of the public that wishes to access them.
Fiona, Staff Scientist, Australasia/Pacific

I agree. This is an important policy that should make medical research available free to the academic world.
Carlos, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Central/South America

I agree. This will give the opportunity to the scientists to have access to NIH funded research directly via the NIH's online archive.
Christina, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

I agree---NIH funded the research and as long as the peer review process is intact, I think this is a good thing for open access.
Howard, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

I also like the NEJM so much because it has PDA downloadable versions of many of its articles/reviews.
George, Department Head, North America

I am agree with this policy. It is most difficult to read printed paper journals than online using and searching.
Anna, Professor/Teacher, Europe

I am in agreement with this policy because it allows the public, after a reasonable amount of time to have access to the new findings.
Adrienne, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

I am looking forward to the time when all journals will be online, free to access full text articles, without publications costs, independently supported by taxpayers, free of advertisements and industry/political influences, and without copyrights. But am I dreaming?
Michel, Professor/Teacher, North America

I am not clear if this means they will not be published elsewhere, as long as they are peer reviewed prior to going online I do not see that this is a problem.
Tracey, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

I am not really sure if I agree or not it would require more thought on my behalf to give a justifiable answer.
Lisa, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

I believe that it is a reasonable policy, especially if NIH funded the research.
Michael, Professor/Teacher, North America

I believe that the online magazine will be the database for world but not in near future because there is a big difference of salary. I believe that there are very good specialists who haven't enough money for pay these online magazine because their salary aren't so big (only because they live and work in a poor contry).
Valentin, Physician, Europe

I believe that this policy makes possible a wider dissemination of research findings related to NIH funded studies and may allow for greater and more frequent collaborative efforts among researchers in allying fields, particularly among those receiving grants from the NIH.
Casey, Laboratory Technician, North America

I can't see how they can enforce this - the copyright for the article resides with the publisher, not with the author. Does the NIH mean to enforce publication of NIH-funded work solely in journals that will release the article from all copyright restrictions within 6 months?
Craig, Principal Investigator, Australasia/Pacific

I completely agree with this policy. NIH funded research is a public funded research. So a published paper from NIH funded research should be available freely on the web. It is beneficial and healthy for the scientific community. NIH should strictly impose along with this that any material there-in should be available without any restriction for academic purposes only. More over in case the author or authors decline or not distribute the material(s) used in such study, the findings/paper should be marked with appropriate comments and future funding to such author(s) should be reviewed stringently.
Abhijit, Staff Scientist, North America

I disagree. What NIH proposes looks like a political move and is just a duplication of what is available online. I cannot see how commercial publishers will agree to this proposal. If they do not agree to deposit these papers (since they own the copyrights), then the NIH repository will contain only papers that publishers (society journals) are willing to deposit. It would be better if the NIH continues to enhance NCBI with direct linking of abstract to full-text articles on the publishers' web sites. This way publishers can maintain integrity of the articles.
David, Principal Investigator, North America

I do agree because these articles are supported by NIH funds and have to be accessible to the largest number of people.
Cristo, Physician, Europe

I do agree with that policy. I think it¥s absolutely necessary to help science develop faster and better. Knowledge should be open access.
Veronica, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

I do agree with this policy because they have funded the project and it may protect the authors rights. It is useful to have no problems with IPR. If necessary the data may be used for patenting.
Thyagaraju, Professor/Teacher, Asia

I do agree with this policy. NIH has funded the work which really makes the work publicly owned. In addition, NIH has been effectively supplementing scientific journals through the costs of publication fees and subscription fees which scientist usually pay for out of their grants as well as the overhead that NIH pays to universities to keep up the libraries. In return, journals typically require that authors give up their publication rights to the journals. Many scientific journals that are not connected to a society make nearly 50-60% profit from publishing scientific journals. The scientific community does the work often with funds from NIH; the scientific community then reviews the work for free and many editors do not even get paid for their work. It is rare that authors pay to have their work published in other fields. Journals collect publication fees, subscription fees and often advertising fees. In addition, the costs for library subscriptions is high. If NIH pays for the work, and a publication is the result of such work, then it seems only fair, the NIH should be allowed access to that work. Since NIH is funded with public funds, then the public should be allowed access to the work. I strongly agree with the policy.
Lizann, Principal Investigator, North America

I do agree with this policy. NIH is one source of the research funding.
Ibra, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

I do agree. I thing that public funded research must be accessible free of charge. Public taxes are used in research, therefore public should have access to scientific information obtained with this public funding, even if this information can not be understood be each other.
Matthieu, Principal Investigator, Europe

I do not agree it, because it's harmful to the access and communication of scientific information as soon as possible. It's illegal to the spirit of academic freedom.
Mao, Professor/Teacher, Asia

I do not agree with the NIH policy. Six months is too long a time. NIH should put all the papers online in 30 days. Once a paper is published, the NIH online site will have a low visiting rate.
Subba, Staff Scientist, Asia

I do not agree with the policy although it does not directly affect me. It seems as though NIH has over the years bred some kind of redundancy and is now looking for ways to nurture it along. Acknowledgement that appears at the end of the article already has the citation. Importantly, 6 months is a long time to wait for information.
Venky, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

I do not agree with this policy as it undermines the ability of journals to make decisions about how their papers are handled post-publication and will make the funding of publication more difficult.
Keith, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

I do not agree. I think that is very important the peer review process to carry out. However, the papers must be submitted for on line access immediately after this process finish.
Alicia, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Central/South America

I do not agree. I think the electronic version should be published at once.
Gjermund, Quality Assurance/Quality Control, Europe

I do not entirely agree with the NIH policy. One of the primary reasons for publishing research findings is to disseminate new information to other scientists in similar areas of specialization. Being a scientist who previously worked in Africa (where there is limited access to current journals), I think NIH-funded articles should be available online soon after they are accepted for publication. If the articles are going to be published online, why wait for six months? NIH could use a pay-per-view format.
Kamala, Staff Scientist, North America

I do not! Many journals already make their articles available free to the public on Pubmed 6 months after print publication. This new requirement endangers the income garnered from subscription fees of the journals by not-for-profit scientific organizations, income that is used to support other scholarly activities of the societies. Besides, there is no real merit, in my view, in the lay-public, tax-paying or not, gaining access to articles that they may not understand in the first place, yet could use to influence their own health care or the administration of public health. Biomedical professionals have already access to those articles through their memberships in professional societies. Furthermore, a lot of articles are published by for-profit journals describing "research" that was not supported by the NIH and therefore exempt from this rule - an unfair consequence of the rule.
Clark, Professor/Teacher, North America

I do. 6 months should be sufficient for keeping enough interest in paper copies, so a good publisher can recover the relevant costs. After that it is imperative that the article becomes accessible to those in the scientific community who may not be able to obtain a paper subscription and for facilitating access to the article for everyone interested. There have been more than a few articles that I passed up just because they were not available as downloadable print quality pdf files and were not critical enough to warrant a search for a paper copy. I know at least two labs that keep the vast majority of the articles they read in a convenient locally hosted virtual library that allows full text search of abstracts and other types of searches and organization methods. It seems to be the best way to give a method to the madness when thousands of articles exist for a given subject.
Oleksandr, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

I do. How would one disagree? All papers should be made public after a while and papers produced with the help of public funds in particular.
Lev, Professor/Teacher, North America

I do. I believe that public access to scientific results, particularly state funded science, is a key for democracy. In addition as a scientist working in a developing country, I found public access to information vital to decrease the technological gap between rich and poor nations.
David, Principal Investigator, Central/South America

I do. Public funding entails public accountability. Authors' copyrights are not infringed and this adds to increasing availability of NIH-sponsored research to public and fellow researchers. At the same time, there may be a conflict between NIH and the journals because the journals hold the copyright. However, if they reach an agreement, I will agree with this policy.
Alexander, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

I don't agree to this policy, because the authors will get more credit for their work if their work will be available online. Moreover, the printed version takes quite some time (1-3 months) to be available, therefore people working in that field will be benefited more if the work will be available online.
Shilpi, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Asia

I don't agree. I don't understand why the paper takes so much time to show up (6 months) in the online archives and PubMed.
Luciana, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

I don't agree... all information should be free.
Jaime, Physician, Central/South America

I don't see anything wrong with this policy. As long as they wait until after the article has been published, I don't see why it should not be made available to the public.
Karen, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

I don't think the general public has the knowledge base to be able to understand what they are reading in these primary research papers. This policy will only inflame those who are already biased against different types of biomedical research that is currently being conducted.
Heather, Principal Investigator, North America

I feel that the papers to be appeared in a short period of time as 6 months is very long gap. I think more discussions to be needed about open access because it is important that not only the information is disseminated but whether it is accessible to researchers and general public.
Satish, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Asia

I fully agree with peer reviewing but some time I diagree because these people only permit the recent methods and not the older methods (eg HPLC instead fluoremeter) though they are equally good and reliable.
Sheela, Principal Investigator, Asia

I fully agree with this policy. Old publications are normally used for method reference and background information. This is the kind of knowledge that should be publicly available in the scientific community. The journals will still be the tool for being up to date in your field and getting the general interest science information.
Marc, Staff Scientist, Europe

I fully agree with this policy. The research is carried out using Tax Payers' money. Thus, any US tax payer should have access to that data.
Saroj, Professor/Teacher, North America

I fully agree. It's of major importance to get scientific literature accessible to anybody.
Vinciane, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Europe

I fully support NIH's request. Manuscripts prepared with public support should be available to the public.
Peter, Professor/Teacher, North America

I generally agree that some form of peer review is necessary to limit the large amount of unproven, unreproducible and poorly referenced articles that are bound to be submitted. My time is valuable and I can't afford to waste it reading a lot of articles that amount to little more than testimonials.
David, Physician, North America

I guess that would be fine. I am not familiar with the process by which papers are selected for PubMed Central. I primarily search for articles through Entrez/Medline. I assumed PubMed Central was a collection of full text articles, selected from the larger group of articles available on-line. Since I don't regularly access PubMed Central, it does not matter to me one way or another how content gets there. Further more, if the content there does not include all the relevant resources, I am less likely to search there, for fear of leaving something important out of my search.
Beverly, Staff Scientist, North America

I have a nuetral overall feel for this system. It greatly expands the available literature, and it is paid for by the NIH. However, it also decreases the future draw to the website of the journals in which the article was published, thereby decreasing advertising effectiveness. I believe the system would be better served by waiting to 1 year post publication date in order to forward the most benefit to the publishing journal. Secondarily, if the Pubmed system contains a direct link back to the original publication and limited access to the full text, it would be beneficial to both in the 3-12 month time period.
Daniel, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

I have no problem with this policy except that it is a very long wait for papers to appear in PubMed. This could be to the detriment of NIH scientists waiting to get their papers cited by others in the field.
Paige, Principal Investigator, North America

I have no trouble with this policy, 6 months is an adequate time for the journals to charge a premium on the information contained within the manuscript. However, I doubt it will happen anytime soon. There will be stiff resistance.
David, Principal Investigator, North America

I like the intent, but who is to pay the costs. This proposal entails real new money to be spent. But no new funding is proposed.
Nathan, Physician, North America

I like the policy.
William, Professor/Teacher, North America

I live in a country where medical publications are very expensive in accord to our salary. Electronic reviews allow us to get information otherwise impossible to access because is very expensive to support a subscription.
Washington, Quality Assurance/Quality Control, Central/South America

I prefer to see it sooner than 6 month on PubMed.
Simin, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

I really think it is a good idea (and, coming from Europe, I think something like this should exist here, too). Scientific information HAS to be public, for several reasons: first: it is paid for (mostly) by the public and second: after some time, it should be accessible for everyone without subscription to make sure that scientific advancements are not hindered by subscription rules etc.
Dirk, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

I strongly agree to that policy since NIH's research is tax funded, tax payers should have the right to access the results of research.
Carsten, Staff Scientist, Europe

I strongly agree with the NIH policy as it will help scientists from developing world to gain access to quality work.
Ramakrishna, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Europe

I strongly agree with this policy. NIH funds are the one which should be used, in a sense, for the public work. Any results funded based on the public interest should be open to the public.
Chang-Sub, Professor/Teacher, Asia

I strongly agree! It's of paramount importance for the human health that all knowledge is free everywhere!
Marco, Principal Investigator, Europe

I strongly agree. A journal should be an instrument to give people access to knowledge. For economic reasons, they can't do that. Therefore, at least the research paid with government funds should be available to the community.
Roberto, Professor/Teacher, Central/South America

I strongly disagree with ANY delay to appearance on the NIH Pubmed Central site. I also think that posting the manuscript version is incredibly dumb: the manuscript has a poor "signal to noise" ratio (or more precisely, ink per page) compared to the real publication. Posting the manuscript just causes more pages to get printed to read the thing. I think that: 1) my tax dollars paid for all or part of the work - I and all other American taxpayers should be able to obtain full text access at publication time. The rest of the world is welcome to read it too - hopefully will encourage them and their funding sources to emulate us in making their peer review content available immediately to all. 2) Publication cost is a tiny fraction of the cost of ANY study - the costs should be built into the grant. I also think that the "online public archive" and its close relative, "open access", do not go far enough in making the study available: ALL of the DATA that taxpayers paid for (all data from any study that taxpayers paid even part of) should be made available AT PUBLICATION TIME (of course confidential patient identifiers should not be posted). The microarray crowd is doing along these lines, and the signatories to the DNA sequence "Bermuda agreement" are supposed to do something similar (unfortunately, some of the U.S. genome centers allegedly pay only lip service with respect to full release).
George, Staff Scientist, North America

I support this, if public funding is accepted to perform the research, we have an obligation to disseminate the information discovered to the widest possible audience.
James, Staff Scientist, North America

I think commercial publishers should be able to hold copyright for a full year to keep private publishing viable.
Tom, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

I think it is a good idea to prevent frivolous spending of NIH money.
Linda, Pharmacist, North America

I think it is a good policy as the NIH funding comes from public taxes, therefore the public should have access to the results of those studies.
Marcia, Department Head, North America

I think it is definitely a start in the right direction. I would like to see papers available immediately, but I can understand the financial considerations that have prompted the NIH's decision. I hope that this will be a successful trial and that it will soon be modified to make articles available earlier.
Constance, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

I think it will be a great benefit, especially for researchers and professors at small institutions with limited budgets.
Gwyneth, Professor/Teacher, North America

I think its a great idea, since all the publications would be available online free for all. This would enable us to march further ahead into new scientific discoveries.
Mukta, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

I think it's appropriate, some recognition for their funding and a central location to find the research. BUT, I think a link to the on-line journals should be included and if it's a printed journal a complete reference should be provided. I think that charging to view papers should remain free, because often it looks like it might be a good paper from the abstract, but once downloaded, it often isn't useful. Perhaps have dues from professional societies fund access and/or have large research entities (like the Dept of Agriculture) pay annual dues for their personnel to gain access.
Patricia, Principal Investigator, North America

I think its the right thing to do if they are giving a grant.
Muhammad, Physician, North America

I think that free access to journal articles is important and I agree with this policy.
Jessica, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

I think that if NIH is supporting a research project then the resulting paper should be made available on PubMed Central as soon as the article appears in print. This will allow wider circulation of important discoveries/developments earlier that may have a bearing on current research.
Stuart, Department Head, Europe

I think that this is a good policy because it ensures that all articles can be found with a simple search via PubMed.
Kristy, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

I think the concept of availability 6 months after publication is a good one, whether through PubMed or just the original publisher. Most don't have open access for at least a year, so this would be an improvement.
Clif, Department Head, North America

I think this is a fair requirement, and would ensure wider circulation of the published research. However, I'm not sure how this would conflict with the policy of the journal publishers towards reproduction of material published in their periodicals!
Vinod, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

I think this is a great idea. However, I wish the delay time could be shortened significantly (i.e., to 1 month or less). The current delay of 6 months makes the information ultimately obtained less "current".
Donald, Professor/Teacher, North America

I think this is a very good policy. After all, a lot of research that is published in peer reviewed journals is supported by government funding, so it should be available to the public and other researchers. It is interesting that publishers make huge sums of money from publicly funded research - which otherwise might not be available for the public to later access.
Andrew, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Australasia/Pacific

I think this service is redundant.
Karen, Principal Investigator, North America

I think waiting one year is a good compromise that should be kept.
Stefano, Professor/Teacher, North America

I wholeheartedly agree. The world wide web would never have grown to this level if people had to pay for it. And strangely, the whole endeavor of Internet communication has proved itself viable and promising in spite of this apparent disadvantage. I don't see why scientific journals should change the course of the history of the natural evolution of the Net.
Unnikrishnan, Professor/Teacher, Asia

I would agree with this policy. Having funded the research, who won't try to put it up on its own web site. NIH has to exhibit its activity details to the public.
Amit, Post Doctoral Fellow, Asia

I would if the NIH grant money was used to pay publication charges that would cover the cost lost to the original publishing journal (i.e. so that subscribers of the journal don't have to absorb the cost).
Bryan, Principal Investigator, North America

I would like to see more new aticles fast, and be able to see development during a peer process. And thus be able to comment and take part in the process. Or be able to discuss an article with my fellow workers. I would actually like online search features to be more "real time". An article need not be perfect in order to send an impulse for thought and research.
Pontus, Physician, Europe

I would prefer them to appear online sooner than 6 months, otherwise I agree with that policy because it helps create an extensive collection of published studies in one place.
Galeb, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

If a mentor pays for your music lessons and access to studio to play, does he own your music? I think that if they feel the public deserves to have full access to publications describing research funded by NIH, then the public should also have full access to the text of grants funded by NIH. The problem with public access is establishing rational limits. Since the public pays the bill for the reviewing of the grants that are not funded, shouldn't the public be entitled to access them also then? Who decides about public release of publications where the reported work is only funded in part by NIH funding?
Jerome, Physician, North America

If NIH is the only funding, than that's o.k. The 6 months period maybe should be shortened.
Ira, Department Head, Europe

In principle, I think this is an excellent idea. I strongly believe (although I recognize that it is difficult) that ALL peer-reviewed published papers should be publicly accessible on line within a few months of their publication, if not earlier.
Ingrid, Staff Scientist, Europe

In todays advancing society and busy life's it is nice to be able to flip on the computer and find what you need in a hurry using only key words. Online journals are very helpful to professionals, I hope they keep up the good work.
Patricia, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

It is a great move by the NIH and should be copied by all public funding bodies. Research knowledge belongs to the scientific community not corporate publishers.
Glenwyn, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

It is a pity that NIH has taken this approach (perhaps it was inevitable). I think it is worthwhile that they make all research available online, but to duplicate publications from elsewhere is not necessarily the way to go. One could also have tried to make an agreement among (on-line) publishers that all material, independent of the source of funding, will be made available to the public at large for free 6 months (or any other appropriate period of time) after the paper has been published.
Jan, Professor/Teacher, Europe

It is a reasonable policy which could assure more wide dissemination of important scientific information.
Barry, Principal Investigator, North America

It is getting always more difficult to be informed in "our developing countries". It is a matter of money. Nevertheless, Internet access is vital for us.
Ulrico, Staff Scientist, Central/South America

It is good, since it is open access.
Liying, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

It is public funding, so I can see the reason behind this move. I do worry about the lay population misinterpreting the papers.
Carrie, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

It is reasonable to have all papers, whether supported by public funding or not, be archived in PubMed.
Larry, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

It is their money, they can request anything they like. May slow delivery of information however.
Chester, Physician, North America

It is very useful for me.
George, Professor/Teacher, North America

It seems fine.
Chris, Professor/Teacher, North America

It should be certificated by some authorized organizations.
Liang, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Asia

It will allow other researchers who do not have access to this articles either as a result of money to still be able to view it. I believe it is a great policy.
Ayodeji, Professor/Teacher, Africa

It would be advantageous if one could see the papers directly. On the other hand this could disadvantage non-NIH funded research articles.
Paula, Post Doctoral Fellow, Australasia/Pacific

It would very good.
aaron, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

It's a good policy because it permits to know new things relatively fast and in a secure way.
Julie, Physician, Central/South America

It's ok with me. Why? Because I believe it's correct (for publisher AND author).
Constantin, Physician, Europe

It's only natural that publicly-funded research be accessible without any additional charge. Why let corporations make money on people's investments?
R, Staff Scientist, Europe

Makes articles available to the public in a reasonable timeframe.
William, Physician, North America

Much better to have a peer review before having access to it.
Jean-Paul, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

Nature has made a great improvement by editing each number in a newsstand format which can be downloaded each Thursday and read as the printed version but on the screen of the computer. Then you can go to their web site to download as pdf a relevant paper for your research.
Bernard, Principal Investigator, Europe

NIH is free to archive all papers that are published with their funding and this seems a reasonable and responsible function, but there is an unreasonable delay in putting these archives together.
Kenneth, Principal Investigator, North America

No - I don't believe it's a good thing.
Paul, Quality Assurance/Quality Control, North America

No - if this means they will not be available to view/search for 6 months, it's an inaccesability to valuable information/data for other researchers.
Zoe, Post Doctoral Fellow, Asia

No because there is the potential that they may never be published.
William, Administrator, North America

No it should be left to the scientist the freedom to choose the journal they think is most suitable for their research.
Nadia, Professor/Teacher, Europe

No! This policy delays a lot the circulation of scientific information.
Stefan, Professor/Teacher, North America

No, because the information will be too old by the time it is available to those that most need to access it.
wendy, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

No, because this could reduce the viability of publications produced by the learned societies.
Jon, Principal Investigator, Europe

No, I believe it should be published sooner.
Kristina, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

No, I do not agree with it. As the paper has been published which has showed the support from NIH it is unnecessary for NIH to spend our tax to set up this data base to do it.
Jide, Principal Investigator, North America

No, I don't agree, because any important finding in the field of science, once reviewed by persons with great expertise in the field in a correct manner, should be made available to the public (at least scientists). This will help in the progress of research (collaborations, make sure that the same results are not published by 2 labs at the same time, and if it is a life-saving discovery, why not use it immediately?). If we are sure of the results we have, why restrict it to others for 6 months?
Sharmila, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

No, I don't agree. It's time to catch up with technological times and provide online backup support to the printed article, which is soon to be extinct anyway. The process is also a hindrance to lesser developed countries who rely on the Internet for latest information, more so than printed copy.
Lisa, Professor/Teacher, North America

No, I think they should appear sooner.
Karen, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

No, it delays distribution of papers in a timely manner.
Paul, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

No, it is unlikely that the researchers will change behavior and submit to such an archive.
Hans, Principal Investigator, Europe

No, it's too long a time for important results to appear online.
Usha, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

No, publication on peer-reviewed journals should be sufficient.
Adela, Principal Investigator, North America

No, the internet is supposed to be the gateway of information and this policy just holds that back. I think they should be published and appear online simultaneously.
Mackenzie, Laboratory Technician, North America

No, there is no reason to wait 6 months if the expense of "publishing" the paper has been recovered by one or more of the methods listed in the questions. The only reason that the time lag would be included was to protect the financial interests of the publisher.
Jim, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

No, too long a time for vital information like cancer treatments or any drug on investigations that has good results.
Angel, Physician, Central/South America

No. I can understand the delay. But, I feel the information should be made available sooner.
Janet, Laboratory Technician, North America

No. It would only make the process of citation much longer.
Sergi, Principal Investigator, Europe

No. Papers should be available immediately.
David, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

No. Sounds like too much trouble for the investigator.
William, Administrator, North America

No. The health related data should be available immediately to enable to serve the patient better.
Kannan, Principal Investigator, Asia

No. The novel knowledge should be distributed to the scientific community as soon as they are available after the peer-review procedure has been satisfactorily concluded.
Jochanan, Staff Scientist, Africa

No. There would be too much pressure to conform.
David, Department Head, Europe

No. Too rapid distribution after publication.
Louis, Professor/Teacher, North America

No. While well intentioned, I am concerned that it will make it impossible for many publishers to recover sufficient costs to cover the costs of publishing many research journals. This could lead to fewer journals, and those that remain would become cluttered with advertising - think Vogue, there's an article in there somewhere isn't there?
Marla, Principal Investigator, North America

No--takes too long.
Joseph, Physician, North America

Of course. This is publicly funded research. It belongs to the public.
Steven, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

One of the major problems with publication in the past has been the time it takes for research/updates, etc. to be published. Electronic publication has the potential to speed up this process so that new information is not 'out of date' before it is widely published. The NIH experience seems to support this to a certain extent, though it would be nice to have the papers online and accessible as soon as they have been peer reviewed.
Peter, Physician, Europe

Online journals are the future source of scientific communication among scientists. However with the increasing rate of online journals the quality of publications should not be deterioted.
Senthil, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Asia

Overall I do agree, but I would make the articles immediately available since the research is funded with public resources.
Robert, Physician, North America

Seems like the information in their archive would be redundant. I would not find the repository useful.
Midori, Principal Investigator, North America

Since the work is funded by tax dollars there is a valid claim for delivering the finished work to PubMed Central. However, it is not NIH's position to harm the journal publication industry. Six months is reasonable but I would prefer that the time limit be a year. This can be an opportunity for the journal publisher's to perform an end run around NIH and put their work for public access after a year moratorium. This is reasonable to protect the intellectual property rights of the publisher but also to fulfill their public service commitments.
Doug, Staff Scientist, North America

Some of the Major organization are against it because they will lose subscription fee because we pay a fee to get the Journal. If all the papers are free on line, why would member pay any subscriptions fee to receive the journal. I believe this is a valid point and American College of Physician and Endocrine Society are currently against the NIH proposal.
Ian, Physician, North America

Strongly agree, scientific articles should be opened freely to public. This online public archive will give more opportunity for the readers in the developing countries and make more use of the work. The more an article spreads to the public, the more benefit it gives. It will leads to more suggestions and more discussion.
Nanthawan, Laboratory Technician, Africa

Strongly agree. Research funding is not paid by the journal. Therefore, the information of the article should be available at least to those people who pay for the research being done. When funding is public, articles should be available to the public. Also online, archives will help in performing research worldwide.
Pasquale, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

Sure, I think this is a great policy assuming it isn't too time consuming.
John, Professor/Teacher, North America

Sure, sounds reasonable to be able to flag the work they fund. Besides it offers an additional route to getting one's work noticed.
Sasha, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Sure, they are the providers of the grant and should be able to present the papers/research that are accomplished via these funds.
Marwa, Physician, North America

Sure. As long as the publisher is aware of this stipulation, this will serve to propagate information. It may, however, prevent publication where such wide distribution is not wanted, but market forces should obviate this.
Daniel, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Sure. If they want to archive their NIH-funded studies, I see no problem with this. However, I don't know what advantage it provides.
Mary, Physician, North America

That policy is acceptable to such papers funded by such donors. Every where it needs uniformity much more precise about the research as such otherwise leads to submit the replicated articles.
Dilli, Principal Investigator, Asia

The NIH supports most of the publication costs for scientific articles published in the U.S., and has a limited right of access to these articles. Posting should only occur with the journal's consent and should be via a link to the journal site. This will insure that the journal is recognized during each access, for the contributions to peer review and technical editing, and will guarantee that all posted articles are in the final format. I foresee many problems if authors are free to post papers on PubMedCentral, without certainty that the final version, and only the final version, is being used. The last thing we want is to create the need for cross-checking to ensure that additional material has not been incorporated after the published version, or that information has been removed. Small changes could have big effects on patent rights, scientific priority, and academic status. Once the article is posted on a public access site, it will be difficult to put milk back into the bottle.
C., Department Head, North America

The online journals information is very important for my work as teacher and researcher. Also I receive very important information about instructions for authors of journals and this is very useful for me.
Anna, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Europe

The online journals should give open access to all the people for the sake of scientific information flow. More and more people come to know about the recent development about science. Although the right of the author should be conserved but the young scientist should be given open access.
Haroon, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Asia

The papers should appear much earlier!
Wera, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

The policy is certainly a good one, especially insofar as I often retrieve articles that are much older than 6 months old. Access to full text documents is very valuable to me, as I hate walking down to the library, or having to wait for three days to get a copy purchased through our institutional service.
Dany, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

The policy is okay but the appearance of the article after 6 months seems quite lengthy.
Loretha, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

Theoretically it is a good idea. The Societies are screaming who will nurture the peer review and coordinate all the reviews and run the journal? Do we want all that power at NIH--no they are so reductionist and conservative it could stifle science. It would at least stifle the abomidable practice in Science to have articles advertized then make them impossible to download or read. I also hate the cookie counters at Blackwell that block access. The electronic library provided by Elsevier is excellent but expensive.
David, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

There is a possibility that publishers may eventually chose to eliminate publishing paper journals altogether. Also our university library is considering placing all printed paper journal issues older than 10 years into compact storage in the basement, that we would no longer be able to browse through. Instead we would need to put in requests to obtain copies of individual articles and wait a day or two for delivery. The rationale is that compact storage (shelving moved by an electric motor) is dangerous and an unknowing library patron could get crushed in it. If these scenarios were to come about, the access provided by PubMed to archival papers would therefore become very important. Possibly by increasing the 6 month period to a year or more, this might allow journals to better recover costs.
James, Principal Investigator, North America

They should be available one month after publication!
Stanton, Physician, North America

Think this is good. This will increase the circulation as NIH database is frequently searched by many researchers that I know of.
Yee, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Europe

This allows also scientist who do not work at well endowed universities to keep up with scientific progress.
Elisabeth, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

This experiment will show weaknesses in our publications. It takes too long, is too influenced by corporations.
Sam, Physician, North America

This is a good policy but it must be done in a proper manner so that the publishers of the best journals do not go out of business and these journals are lost.
R., Staff Scientist, Europe

This is a good policy, making papers, for which public funds have been spent, available to the public.
Sigrid, Professor/Teacher, Europe

This is a reasonable policy. The NIH should have the right to catalogue publications they made possible through grants. Waiting 6 months does not diminish the value to the journal the article is published in, but it does expand the value to the scientific community. The NIH is more likely to exist long term than some of the journals so having an archived copy of publications available would provide additional access for the author and for researchers.
Glen, Department Head, North America

This policy is a good start to share all publications with the scientific community but it should be done faster than six months.
Ana, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

This policy is in line with the general tendency of NIH to support public access to the knowledge generated under its funding and to facilitate sharing of the results. Since the science should be a unrestricted exchange of the knowledge, I fully agree with this approach. It will also provide the US-based medical researchers (whose important source of funding is from NIH) with a preferable treatment in comparison with non-US colleagues, since the former will be obliged to make their results public. I am sure this also is a positive development.
David, Principal Investigator, North America

This will become a great online archive and it will ease the tasks of literature search. I would like articles be published here even earlier, after all, the quick and broad dissemination of the work is what should matter most.
Javier, Staff Scientist, Europe

This would be a much neeeded policy. This would serve to foster the free exchange of information between researchers.
Jonas, Physician, North America

Though open and complete access to research findings supported through the NIH is a worthy concept, the policy does not inherently protect the data being presented in the manuscripts in the same manner as that afforded by a publisher through copyright mechanisms.
John, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

To preserve the value of print journals, I think the time between publication in print to the online version should be a year, but otherwise I think it's a good idea. I'd like to see all published works available for free online after a period of time, as a convenience. Ultimately, anyone wanting a copy of a paper can go to a library and copy it, so free public access will provide a convenient service to the community.
Angela, Laboratory Technician, North America

Voluntary nature makes it unlikely that NIH's policy will significantly change things.
Wayne, Principal Investigator, North America

Well yes in a way. But they can have it published earlier. It is for the benefit of all. We all have one common goal. That is to seek results for the better of mankind. So once it is peer reviewed, it should be up as soon as possible.
Ahmad, Laboratory Technician, Asia

While I believe that access to this information is important, I strongly believe that making such a policy mandatory can, though, no doubt, rarely, have a detrimental effect. This should be a voluntary action.
Mark, Department Head, North America

Whilst I may agree with the policy, I also think the papers appearing online six months after publication is just too long. I do not know why six months was chosen. But I would be glad to see a review. A maximum period of six weeks should suffice.
Kofi, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Europe

Why not ?
Traian, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

Yes - but I understand that it has been revised, under pressure from publishers, to 12 months.
Roy, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes - I believe the purpose of research in all areas is to bring all of us to new understandings, not just those who are able to pay for the knowledge.
Sherri, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

Yes - I do agree. I think that six months is fair for publishers to recoup costs of articles, and, in the interest of science, these articles should become freely available after that time period.
Anna, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

Yes - more ready access to important information.
Campbell, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

Yes - the results of publicly funded research should be readily available to the public.
Fenton, Staff Scientist, North America

Yes - they have right to show what their funding has produced.
Peter, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Yes - they paid for the research!
Richard, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes - they paid for the research.
Carl, Physician, North America

Yes I agree, although I would prefer that they stay in the respective journal site on the web rather the PubMed Central otherwise PubMed Central will look more like a jounral itself and less like a public archive.
Victor, Physician, North America

Yes I agree, knowledge should be shared.
Susan, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

Yes I agree. Eventually, all peer reviewed science should be made available to all interested.
Stacey, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes I agree. I am from Israel and my only access to new developments is the Internet. I coordinate a number of clinical research projects as well as teach and I am thirsty for new, current information as soon as possible. I am often used as a reference in my department for the newest technologies. I strongly believe that medical information should be available to physician/nurses as soon as possible to enable us to be the best practioners possible!
Julie, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Africa

Yes I agree. If NIH funds a study they certianly have a right to a copy of the results.
Michael, Staff Scientist, North America

Yes I agree. These results are obtained with public funds and this the public should have access to the information.
Andrea, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes I agree. This is a way to make known to the scientific community and the general public which are the topics and the quality of the papers published with research funds from the NIH.
Casilda, Staff Scientist, Central/South America

Yes I do agree with this policy. I look forward to NIH's online paper reviews. This policy will benefit fast access of current literature search which is very important.
Alka, Staff Scientist, Europe

Yes I do, since the NIH is the primary source of funding for work performed in most labs. It makes sense that they should compile a pool of papers arising from all NIH funded work.
Gouri, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes I do. Government funded research should be made freely available to the public. Publishers should not have exclusive rights to distribution of scientific papers, which typically are derived from experimental data obtained using government funds, in perpituity. I think a 6 month delay is a reasonable time frame for the publisher to recoup their publication costs (which in and of themselves typically seem inflated - particularly for on-line content which once assembled requires little if any costs to maintain and disseminate).
Scott, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes I do. Public access, even if you have to wait for 6 months after the publication date, is very important, especially for researchers from underprivileged countries, that usually cannot afford to pay for journal subscriptions. Moreover, public access can potentially increase general public access to science papers, thus enable a better understanding of scientific issues. This in turn could help to break the barrier between scientists and public, and increase knowledge dissemination.
Mara, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

Yes I strongly agree with this policy. Science cannot be a stronghold of the rich. Researchers from developing and poor countries will benefit immensely from this initiative. Many scientist work in absence of access to journals and end up merely re-inventing the wheel.
Tushar, Post Doctoral Fellow, Asia

Yes! This will give access to the papers, and can bypass the publisher to get hold of the information. No! It will delay the vital information and might result (most likely) in redundant scientific exploration. Best thing would be journal should acquire the publication charges from the coroporate world.
Ramakrishna, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes, a good use of public funds.
Simon, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes, a perfect way to get large open access library for each scientist in the world. The six months should be enough for the publishers to get enough paying "readers" to pay for publication (and our free reviewing).
Marcel, Principal Investigator, Europe

Yes, absolutely, taxpayers have a right to see their dollars at work.
Cliff, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Yes, absolutely. NIH funds are public funds and therefore information generated with such funds should be readily available via public forum.
Theresa, Pharmacist, North America

Yes, absolutely. The public has paid for this work.
Phyllis, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes, all papers funded by NIH should be submitted, else why should they fund work? They should appear on PubMed much quicker than 6 months later.
Pamela, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

Yes, all papers published should be accessible to all people. It is great that NIH is taking the step and I believe it should not only restrict to the NIH sponsored research. The sooner the better for this and 6 months are almost too long.
Xiaoting, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes, allows for continued review, corrections prior to print.
Scott, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes, as it allows for checks and balances.
Brad, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

Yes, as it was originally funded by them.
Michelle, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, Europe

Yes, as it would allow online access to articles that may not otherwise be available (i.e. those published in a journal without online access).
Maxine, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Europe

Yes, as long as this does not delay the release of the article to the public. PubMed remains the most used tool for people to find out about new discoveries, hence the faster it is uploaded to their database, the better.
Nicolas, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes, as these studies are funded by NIH.
Girish, Professor/Teacher, Asia

Yes, as this would justify current and future funding and will act as a productivity yardstick to recipients.
Ruslan, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

Yes, because are the investigations are performed with public funds.
Jose, Department Head, Europe

Yes, because centralized publication may help to ensure that the majority of interested readers can access the articles.
Nicole, Laboratory Technician, North America

Yes, because funds were mainly provided by NIH.
Julio, Professor/Teacher, Central/South America

Yes, because I think it is correct.
Stefano, Physician, Europe

Yes, because in this way I could get more information on research funding from the NIH.
Josef, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes, because it give more access to the paper and the data.
Jacalyn, Laboratory Technician, North America

Yes, because it help me to access all my favorite articles without searching!
Seyed, Department Head, Asia

Yes, because it is funded by NIH.
Patria, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes, because its very important.
Francisco, Principal Investigator, Central/South America

Yes, because NIH funding comes out of tax-payers' money.
Easwara, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes, because results of research should be open for everybody. This is a step into that direction.
Rodolfo, Principal Investigator, Central/South America

Yes, because scientific information will be available sooner to everybody.
Esther, Professor/Teacher, Central/South America

Yes, because the technical knowledge and the money must have been spent from the department source.
Venkata, Staff Scientist, Asia

Yes, because their funding comes from the NIH. The NIH should have unrestricted access to the published work and then if they choose to generate a database for everyone to view so be it.
Gary, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes, because then all NIH funded studies would be archived in a central place making access and database searches easier because you wouldn't be jumping between journals.
Mary, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

Yes, but articles should appear earlier.
Daniel, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes, data is useless unless shared and who is to decide why or why not the public's viewing of the data is appropriate or not?
Elizabeth, Laboratory Technician, North America

Yes, data should not be restricted if publicly funded.
Gary, Department Head, Australasia/Pacific

Yes, fair enough.
Thomas, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes, for the better quality.
Romualdas, Staff Scientist, Europe

Yes, for the following reasons: cross reference, search faster.
Vijay, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Asia

Yes, free access of scientific information should be available to all as a global good for societal benefit. A 6 month lag makes it fair for the publications to gain fees for subscriptions for those who cannot wait 6 months for the latest advances in their fields.
Josephine, Staff Scientist, North America

Yes, given time for immediate digestion and response to the papers content, before opened to more general usage.
Philip, Department Head, North America

Yes, I agree. Since NIH is funding the research I think it is fair to have also some rules in place, and if this is one of them, why not.
Adina, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Yes, I agree and it should have been done many years ago.
Hakim, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Yes, I agree because this way NIH can show to the scientific community how its funds are used.
Elsa, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes, I agree but in my opinion the papers should be dispersed to on-line free access to countries in development. I think that is very important to open the access to countries in development where a lot of scientists don't have conditions to pay by the articles.
Mario, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Central/South America

Yes, I agree in principle. If the work is funded by NIH, it is reasonable for them to expect it becomes publicly available. However, I would not agree if this process then limits the right of authors to choose the journal to submit their article to (e.g., if the publisher will not agree with the NIH conditions).
Bill, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Australasia/Pacific

Yes, I agree it makes the funding process more clear.
Elisabetta, Principal Investigator, Europe

Yes, I agree this policy. Because NIH supports those published projects, and this provides convenience to NIH researchers to get latest information and to do cooperation.
E, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes, I agree with this policy.
Fernando, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes, I agree with this policy. The submitted articles should have free full-text access to public too since public funds are used to support the research and authors typically pay to the publishers to have their papers published already.
Demir, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Yes, I agree with this statement. I think that scientists should have access to the latest data faster than what is occurring through journals. It can take up to a year sometimes for a paper to become available through a journal and at times a year later can hinder certain types of research.
Brandon, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes, I agree with this system. The NIH supports research that is credible and often of high scientific value. The Pubmed Central is often screened by numerous researchers for information on their specific topics.
Shyama, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

Yes, I agree with this. Many journals offer free access after 6 months or a year also. It is ok to charge for new articles but after a certain period it is nice to have articles available free of charge.
Arne, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes, I agree, because "It's the vibe".
Anne, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Australasia/Pacific

Yes, I agree, because peer-reviewed articles should be available to the public (maybe after a certain time period, i.e. 6 months).
Alexander, Physician, Europe

Yes, I agree, because the NIH has to keep track of the grants they give to scientists. Besides, in the future, access to the papers can be done through the NIH site.
Tania, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

Yes, I agree, however it will hurt the publishers! On the contrary, it will benefit the researchers - especially those that don't have access to all the expensive journals!
Ion, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

Yes, I agree, it is a serious system.
Vincenzo, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes, I agree. Access to scientific publications should be available for all, especially public-funded research. Limited access can reduce the impact of research, and money-based access impacts unfairly on students, new faculty with limited grants, etc.
Cynthia, Staff Scientist, North America

Yes, I agree. But the sooner the better. By this action anybody could be helped in their research article preparation.
Azwar, Professor/Teacher, Asia

Yes, I agree. It is a way to ensure funding is well used and within the limits set by the institution as well as to ensure quality and prestige for it.
Cristina, Physician, Europe

Yes, I agree. It is reasonable and acceptable to me. It is fair as well.
Bogdan, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes, I agree. It serves as a way to track specific NIH funded papers in a fast manner.
Shannon, Laboratory Technician, North America

Yes, I agree. It will unify the research publication process and will make it easier to follow NIH activity.
Andrzej, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes, I agree. Online public archive allows an easy and quick information on the most recent scientific research.
Giuseppe, Physician, Europe

Yes, I agree. Since the published research work is supported by tax payer, the public has the right to have access to the paper for free. In other words, we pay for the research so we should not be asked to pay again to read the results.
Zhili, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Yes, I agree. The cost of print journals has ballooned to take up a too-large proportion of science costs and the burden on researchers and their institutions has become too great. Print journals will need to take more advertising to cover their costs.
Geoffrey, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes, I agree. The research is funded by the public and therefore should be available.
Elaine, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Yes, I agree. This process can increase the chance of appearance of reliable works in journals and finally in Internet searches.
Siamak, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Asia

Yes, I agree. Widespread distribution of scientific information plays an essential role in communication among researchers and the interested public.
Sanja, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Europe

Yes, I agree. With the public funded research, all the publications should be available for the scientific community.
Lingli, Staff Scientist, Australasia/Pacific

Yes, I believe that all articles should be available both from an author's web sites and from a central free database. I do not believe that the ability to obtain individual articles for free represents a danger to journal subscription revenue. The bundling of related articles and the reviewing process are the keys to journal success.
James, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes, I believe that all the people must have access to the knowledge that is generated for public funds.
Juan, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Central/South America

Yes, I believe this is acceptable. I think that once the paper is in print, it should simultaneously be in the NIH archive.
Franco, Staff Scientist, North America

Yes, I completely agree. It shows the public and legislators how valuable their grants are to the research community. Everyone should know that without NIH grants many research opportunities would not be possible.
Precila, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

Yes, I do agree with this policy. It is very important that scientific papers be readily accessible to the people who are interested. This is especially true for universities and countries which cannot bear the burden of the financial costs incurred in subscribing to the increasingly growing number of journals. This effort by NIH would be a boon for those people and at the same time will protect the interests of the journals as it is only after 6 months that the papers would be accessible. In fact it probably could be cut down to 3 months, as the research is moving at a fast pace and the relevance of accessing article after 6 months is questionable...
Geetha, Staff Scientist, Asia

Yes, I do agree with this policy. Peer reviewed research results that have been sponsored by public funds should be made accessible for everybody who is interested in scientific matters. Open access after a short delay of half a year after publication in a Scientific journal or in specialized Web archives is acceptable, assumed that the results are published electronically immediately after acceptance.
Gerhard, Staff Scientist, Europe

Yes, I do agree, since the papers' research is funded by the NIH I think it is good they collect all papers in an online public archive for easy search and their own administration.
Yvonne, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

Yes, I do agree. 1) NIH has a right to publish the papers it has funded. 2) It will give access to the researchers in the developing world to all the papers which they usually can't access due to high cost of the printed journals and cost of the online subscriptions. 3) This will be helpful in the developing world where the libraries are very poorly equipped and there is very little access to the latest textbooks and journals. 4) At the same time 6 month period is good time for the journals and the authours to get reward of their work. This will be a good encouragement for them too. This policy of NIH will only help to further the interest of the scientific community.
Shripad, Physician, Asia

Yes, I do. Payment of journals are so high to subscribe so we can read it after.
Erdin, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Europe

Yes, I do. We can access the article even if we do not have subscription of the journal(s).
Po-Keung, Professor/Teacher, Asia

Yes, I fully agree with this policy. Making papers available free after a lock in period of 6 months will go a long way in dissemination of data base to one and all which will actually be in the interest of investigators.
Balachandran, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Asia

Yes, I fully agree. Most of the research has been done by public money, and that is why the public should have access to the publications.
Hannu, Department Head, Europe

Yes, I strong agree with this wise policy since it is easy for researchers to know what their peers are doing.
Wei, Staff Scientist, North America

Yes, I think eventually all research should be for the good of the whole community and be absolutely transparent.
Gabriel, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Australasia/Pacific

Yes, I think it should be reviewed first by the peer review process before appearing online (publicly) to assure it is accurate information we are receiving and it lets us know that it IS legit information we are being given at the time!
Wendy, Laboratory Technician, North America

Yes, I think it would be a good policy.
Vicki, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

Yes, I think that this will play a very important role in allowing researchers in developing countries to access articles and a minor role in allowing non-scientists to access articles.
James, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes, I would agree with this policy as the public needs to be more aware of its impact on science through public funding sources. Researchers and Institutions can pay for earlier access to article online sources.
Sarah, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

Yes, if NIH has invested in the project then they have some publishing rights over the data. However, the paper should also be published according to the investigator's wishes.
Karyn, Medical Technologist, Australasia/Pacific

Yes, if published, why not.
Harvest, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

Yes, if you don't like it then don't get your funding from the NIH; they have a right to say what is done with their money.
P, Laboratory Technician, North America

Yes, iI agree. It is only correct to be able to compare input with output - in this case NIH funds with the publications which result thereof. The PubMed central resource is also of great help to the research community in its quality of online archive.
Arseni, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

Yes, I'm generally in favor of all moves to make the scientific literature more accessible to scientists.
Robert, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

Yes, increase information sharing.
Sebastian, Laboratory Technician, Central/South America

Yes, it allows access to all.
Fraser, Staff Scientist, Australasia/Pacific

Yes, it allows all scientist free access to published information. Many articles are published in rare journals that are not in medical libraries except for the largest ones (example Harvard Medical Library). Having an archive like PubMed Central gives all scientists access to these publications.
David, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes, it allows freedom of access to the fast moving world of research.
Floyd, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes, it is a democratic method to diffuse new data, obtained with public funds, among a larger scientific community.
Carmine, Principal Investigator, Europe

Yes, it is a good mechanism by which to promote research ideas and sharing of knowledge.
Mary, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes, it is a good way to gain access to research results, especially since many journals now have very long delays (up to a year) between final acceptance of a paper and publication.
Elizabeth, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes, it is important to give the literature to the students, professionals and those who are interested. It is a shame to ask for special subscriptions as Nature does to get articles that are older than 5 years. The library of the past should be an open access, free otherwise we will all have to conserve what we have already paid for.
Jean, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

Yes, it is reasonable.
Reinhard, Staff Scientist, Europe

Yes, it is the best way for observation of the data.
Zorica, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

Yes, it is their decision.
Michael, Quality Assurance/Quality Control, North America

Yes, it is very useful.
Lorenzo, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes, it seems reasonable. It is a centralized source of articles, yet does not compete with the journal that publishes the article.
Earl, Physician, North America

Yes, it should be their right as a funding agency. Its all moving towards electronic and more ready distribution. Get on board or be left behind.
Timothy, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes, it will allow researchers in developing countries to view the papers.
Soon, Professor/Teacher, Asia

Yes, it would allow a better dispersion of the data.
Enrique, Principal Investigator, Central/South America

Yes, it's a good policy.
Sorin, Physician, Europe

Yes, it's a great policy that ensures the public educational purpose of the NIH.
Weimin, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes, many investigators in the US will not reply to reprint requests from investigators in the US. ILL programs at University libraries are very time consuming. Much of the research is funded publicly (NIH, NSF, etc.). I would propose a system in which non-for profits have free access to research while companies pay a universal fee to access publication (fee could be based on total number of downloads or be given the option of a set fee for unlimited downloads). However, currently we pay publication fees in excess of $1000/manuscript. Given the "push" to publish, this is going to encompass larger fractions of investigators budgets leaving less money to do research.
Robert, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes, more access is better.
Melissa, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

Yes, most of my research would appear in PubMed anyway.
Michael, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes, NIH has the right to get back results from their grants.
Francisco, Staff Scientist, Central/South America

Yes, NIH is government sponsored and therefore the data collected by the people it supports belongs to all.
Jennifer, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes, NIH is paying for the research and they are entitled to the papers.
Igor, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes, once published there is no real problem with accessing the paper.\
Mark, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

Yes, public has a right to see what taxpayers' money is developing.
Chad, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes, public money spent on the research.
Horst, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Asia

Yes, publication is about publicizing results.
Aida, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes, publicly funded research should have easy access to the public. The NIH should disclose areas it supports and be accountable.
Peter, Physician, North America

Yes, results from publicly funded research should be freely available to the public.
Bauke, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

Yes, scientific data should be disseminated as widely as possible.
Snjezana, Staff Scientist, Europe

Yes, scientific knowledge should be public.
Luiz, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes, since it is tax payer's money paying for the research, any tax payer should be able to gain access.
Anna-Marie, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes, since it is their money, they have right to the data, and I feel that putting studies in the public domain will make the doctors more CME aware.
Gaurav, Physician, Asia

Yes, since the NIH is funding the research.
Anthony, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Yes, since they are funding the papers should be allowed to publish wherever NIH wishes but the turnaround time should be reduced to 30 days as papers could be useless after 6 months. So, yes should be allowed to publish but time of turnaround is more important, therefore no due to long time wait.
Larry, Staff Scientist, North America

Yes, since they NIH funded the research project they should have full access to the published papers. Also, since it is funded by the US Government, the public should have access to the papers. Perhaps the papers should appear sooner than 6 months after publication.
Fran, Medical Technologist, North America

Yes, sounds like a good way to have the information accessible from different sources.
Kirsten, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Europe

Yes, strongly agree with this. In my opinion every funding agency has a right to maintain a copy of the work that has emerged by its support. This will be helpful to the agency and in turn to the progress of science in several ways: 1. The agency can measure the impact of the work that was funded. 2. The agency can plan the fund allocation according to the research areas of global impact. 3. Also the agency may encourage the researchers of a particular interest to work together by encouraging joint funds.
Madhu, Principal Investigator, Asia

Yes, that is another way to disseminate information paid by public funding.
Alexandre, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes, that’s a great idea.
Guha, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes, the point of research is to contribute to the knowledge base and make a difference in the world. For this to happen, the information needs to reach as many interested people as possible.
Michael, Administrator, North America

Yes, the policy expands the interchange of scientific information, with all the associated advantages for research.
Hugo, Professor/Teacher, Central/South America

Yes, the primary mission of peer-reviewed scientific publications is to disseminate information in a rigorous and timely fashion for the public good. If taxpayers through NIH subsidize that research, they have a right to access the resulting information without further undue restrictions. Restricting access is akin to working for a pharmaceutical company and asking your employer to pay an additional charge to see your work product.
Allan, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes, the purpose of NIH is to encourage research. Expanding communication of peer work is the best way of accomplishing this.
John, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Yes, the research done with an NIH grant was payed for with public money. The information discovered should be public access.
Timothy, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

Yes, then the peer review is included.
Amy, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

Yes, they paid for it.
Robert, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes, they paid for the research.
Dale, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes, this could be a reward to the funding and facilitate the communication between scientists.
Yanming, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, North America

Yes, this is a political necessity for continuation of public and congressional support.
Lazar, Physician, North America

Yes, this is a very good practice. It assures the enlarging of the distribution of scientific information and as well information about funding policy of the NIH. In my vision this is a good practice for maintaining the activity of the NIH at the optimal level and thus supporting high level researches.
Alexandru, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

Yes, to advance the scientific community for all.
Donna, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Yes, totally! This attitude should be taken by all other funding bodies.
Maurizio, Department Head, Europe

Yes, when the work was financed from public money its results should be part of the public domain.
Lubica, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

Yes. 1. NIH pays for the research - thus has the right to set the rules. 2. It's public money funding the research. Thus public already paid for the access.
Lukasz, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes. A temporary embargo makes sense to keep journals alive. But once the "shine" is off a publicly-funded research paper, it should be openly-accessible. For one thing, it helps the pay journals compete with open-access journals for good papers and readership.
Peter, Physician, North America

Yes. Accepting support from a funding source is to accept their requirements for reporting the research results. Similar policies are in place in USDA, CSIRO, and industry.
Mark, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes. All papers should go through peer review to determine contents and facts stated.
Amy, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

Yes. Allows general public to access scientific information.
Alfonso, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes. American taxpayers have a right to access what they have been taxed to support.
Raymond, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes. Because all information should be available free to all researchers at least the NIH is doing something in that line.
Arun, Principal Investigator, Asia

Yes. Because more people including those do not have the subscription to certain journals, such as general public will be able to get access to that database for free.
XJ, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes. Best way to equitable dissemination of high quality information.
Sherva, Physician, Europe

Yes. First, NIH should make an initiative to publish peer-reviewed article that it funds by itself. It is shame that it is shying away from this and just trying to put a show. It's public money that NIH is funding to scientist and scientist require free dissemination of knowledge. So I strongly recommend NIH to do something more like publishing all the papers funded by NIH for free on its website.
Venkatarajan, Staff Scientist, North America

Yes. Funding agency should monitor such activities.
Joe, Professor/Teacher, Asia

Yes. Grant money is public money, therefore information generated with grant should go to the public domain for free.
Jean-Louis, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes. Grants are people's money. Therefore people should be given access to the outcome of the research funded by the public money.
Sankar, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes. I agree as it will provide a one stop shop in terms of an NIH supported database.
David, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes. I agree that if a government pays for the research, then it should be made available, and now with internet technology, there is no excuse for not making these results freely available to the scientists.
David, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes. I agree with the policy as it would help in easy access to scientific information to all.
Deepak, Staff Scientist, Asia

Yes. I agree with the policy because the NIH has funded the research.
Peter, Pharmacist, Africa

Yes. I agree with this. If the NIH has funded the research they should be able to submit the papers to PubMed, which is a major database for biomedical research. It is probably the single most widely used database for biomedical searches.
Brian, Staff Scientist, North America

Yes. I think scientific information should always be public domain.
Julio, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes. I think this will ensure that all data- both positive and negative research outcomes- is available.
Marilyn, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

Yes. I totally agree. In fact, the paper should appear in PMC immediately after publication.This is the best way of disseminating knowledge.
Vadakkuppattu, Department Head, Asia

Yes. I use PubMed more than any other site. It is good to see up and coming articles. If they are funded by NIH, they should have the right to publish on their online archive. They gave the money, they should be alowed to bask in the fame.
Amy, Staff Scientist, North America

Yes. If federal funds are used to obtain the information then it belongs to everybody.
Norman, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Yes. If NIH supports the research, they should have the right to publish the results of their supported research in one central place.
Alec, Staff Scientist, North America

Yes. If research has been funded by public money, then it should be available to the public free of charge.
Thomas, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

Yes. In fact all scientific articles must be accessible in full text after a short period. Some journals offer full text after 1 or 2 years. I feel it should be full open access or at least full text view after a short period of restricted access. The scientific material is for general progress. The progress in all fields we have achieved is not by work of a single person but by 'generations of people'. Growth in any sense is not possible unless all the scientific work of individuals, groups of individuals, institutions are grouped in a way that the next work starts from where the previous work has ended. There is no point in repeating the work of another group. Such progressive work is possible only if open access is there of scientific data. This data belongs to humanity, not to any individual.
K, Department Head, Asia

Yes. In general I want to see something new ASAP, and after 6 months it is already getting old. I am aware of journals that wait 12 months or longer to provide free access, and others that never do or even charge back-access separate to current subscriptions. On the other hand some journals provide free access in the next calender year so the time can be very short. My main concern is that the format for downloading citations is so variable and often not even offered!
Janet, Staff Scientist, Australasia/Pacific

Yes. Information that affects the public health should not be proprietary.
Allan, Physician, North America

Yes. It allows for rapid dissemination of data in a central location.
Heather, Physician, North America

Yes. It allows independent researchers to keep reasonably up to date with scientific advances without incurring the huge journal costs required. Many smaller departments/institutions can not afford subscriptions to all the journals their researchers would like.
Amanda, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

Yes. It helps the scientific community in general.
Garimella, Staff Scientist, Asia

Yes. It increases open access to the most important research findings and allows the public to follow up the details of science stories in the news.
Gordon, Principal Investigator, Europe

Yes. It is a way in which the public can access the work that they fund.
Claire, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes. It looks fair to me. Overall they have been funding the work described in the paper, and anyway this is a good thing in order to disseminate the work results.
Irina, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes. It will help non NIH scientists to get access to the latest research by NIH.
Vaishali, Principal Investigator, Asia

Yes. It will help to further disseminate information.
Marco, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes. It will make the papers more readily available to those who cannot afford personally or whose institutes cannot afford access to the journals, while at the same time giving the original publisher a time advantage that should ensure the continued financial survival of the journal.
Neale, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Australasia/Pacific

Yes. It would speed up the access of papers, rather then waiting for them to be published which could take much longer.
Rhona, Laboratory Technician, North America

Yes. It's fair that the people who fund research should have a say in what happens to the results and they should be allowed to disseminate it in any way that they see fit!
Alan, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

Yes. It's logical that public funding of research results in free access to everyone.
Grizeau, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes. It's publicly funded research. The information should be publicly available.
William, Staff Scientist, North America

Yes. Its reasonable.
Michael, Physician, North America

Yes. NIH funded research is through tax payer money and should be made available to the taxpayer.
Aiyappa, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes. NIH has a prerogative to assess their funding contribution which they can quantify by the volume of publication. Definitely it is only appropriate that the public accesses the publications as they are the overall people targeted by science.
Thomas, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Africa

Yes. NIH has to have all the publications that has been done using the NIH grants. It is very usefull to have full acces to publications online as soon as they have been accepted for publications but I like to read at home quietly journals like Science or Nature.
Ileana, Staff Scientist, North America

Yes. Papers published with the help of public funding should be free access to the research community/public.
Sabine, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes. Provides a database which could prove useful in more ways than one.
Effiong, Professor/Teacher, Africa

Yes. Public funds have been used for the research, so public access, after 6 months is acceptable.
Gerard, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Europe

Yes. Public funds supported the work and the public should have access to the product of the funding.
Iain, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes. Public funds were used.
James, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes. Public money MUST produce PUBLIC results.
Pedro, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes. Publication is to be available or otherwise there is no need for journals.
Warren, Physician, North America

Yes. Publicly funded research should be available to the public.
Gerard, Physician, Europe

Yes. Publicly supported research should be readily available to all.
Janet, Physician, Australasia/Pacific

Yes. Pubmed is a valuable source of papers for those that cannot afford all journal subscriptions. The searchability is wonderful. Six months is plenty of time for the article to be a money maker.
Susan, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Yes. Research is funded by the public. Thus, final peer-reviewed results must belong to the public.
Ilan, Professor/Teacher, Africa

Yes. Research results obtained through public funds should be accessible to the public.
T, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Asia

Yes. Science should be made open because it paves the way for young and emerging scientists in developing countries.
Krishnachaitanya, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Asia

Yes. Since they are distributing the money which is funding the article, they should be able to post the article once published.
Brian, Administrator, North America

Yes. Taxpayers have paid for the work. The results should be available to them.
Stanton, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes. The 6 month insulation period addresses the need for publishers to recoup a good portion of their investment while the delayed full text access allows the taxpayers access to information.
Anthony, Department Head, North America

Yes. The funding from NIH supported research is generated from public tax dollars and should be accessible.
Timothy, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Yes. The general public is generally clueless about real science. Anything that enhances their understanding of science may go a long way toward increasing support for science, and may increase the desire for more people to go into science. At the least, making more information available may stem the tide of ignorance about science, and reduce interest in or fascination with the pseudoscience that informs so much of their world view. The sooner the better.
Craig, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes. The intellectual content of the work was paid for by NIH public taxpayer money and should be made publicly available. Moreover, open access is good for the scientific community. I don't care if all the corporate publishers go bankrupt. Their only value is their contribution to the scientific enterprise.
Ho-Leung, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes. The NIH spends taxpayers' money on research the results of which should not then become the property of private companies such as publishers.
David, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes. The public has "paid" for the work, and it should be available. Since the most important time for the publisher to control access - to get the support from members/readers/advertisers they need to survive - free access after 6-12 months is reasonable. I basically support the ASBMB position on this issue.
William, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes. The research was funded by the public. Therefore, the public should have access to the results of this research.
Cordula, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes. The time spent looking for papers would be greatly diminished and instead we could use such time to read them and also be more productive at work. I spend a lot of time myself requesting articles from the authors themselves since I work in a not so wealthy country/institution. I have been lucky that most reasearchers are extremely accommodating and nice and send me either pdf files or print copies of their papers. But I do waste a lot of time in this process.
Sandra, Post Doctoral Fellow, Europe

Yes. They have funded the research.
Julie, Nurse/Nurse Practitioner, North America

Yes. They paid for the work - they should let the US taxpayer have access to it.
Jane, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes. They put up the money to help get the research performed. They have a right to show what they support. They are simply being accountable to their mission.
Sean, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes. They supported the research.
Eugene, Staff Scientist, North America

Yes. This allows public access to NIH-funded (i.e. public) information. I prefer to print out articles as pdf's and read them - it is still not preferable for me to read an article on screen.
Sam, Department Head, North America

Yes. This is could be more efficient to communicate science data. and this would improve the quality of papers.
Lihou, Graduate Student/Research Assistant, Asia

Yes. This policy improves accessibility, information dissemination and facilitates full-text datamining.
Christian, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, Asia

Yes. This translates to the public access the information that was obtained by applying public funds to the study conducted.
Azhar, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes. This will be an ideal place to search for articles on the subject matters supported by NIH grants.
Usha, Lab Director/Supervisor/Coordinator, North America

Yes; if the public supports the work, then the public should have the results.
Keith, Principal Investigator, North America

Yes; the public paid for the research, therefore under our capitalistic system, the public owns the results. Why should we be forced to give our results to a handful of publishers who, without any investment of their own, go ahead and make money distributing our results.
Johannes, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes; this would facilitate dissemination of scientific discoveries.
Ioan, Professor/Teacher, Europe

Yes--agree. Gets wider circulation of data to possibly a broader and different audience than just publishing in standard form. Why would this not be useful?
Fred, Professor/Teacher, North America

Yes--the more public access to published articles, the better. Having everything in PubMed would allow easier searching from home, where all the benefits of the institutional subscriptions are not currently available.
Zarmik, Post Doctoral Fellow, North America

Yes--this would allow scientific information sharing without having to pay unaffordable prices to retrieve important papers.
Arlene, Physician, North America

To go back to the summary, please click here.

To request information on purchasing the full report, please contact Mike Kibler at The Science Advisory Board.

[ Back to Past Studies ]