Open Access News

The National Institutes of Health reports that the number of visitors to PubMed Central, its online database, has soared. Lots of people are turning to medical Web sites for information about their health. Some of what you find at PubMed Central has a limited audience. The folks who turn to Oprah for their health news probably will resist browsing through "Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, Vols. 1 to 4, 2002 to 2005." But it's there, all there, just in case you want it. And there's plenty of information on arthritis research, cancer research, dermatology research--health issues that do have big and broad audiences. Many people want the National Institutes of Health to release more government-funded research, and to release it more quickly. In response, NIH has created an online collection of peer-reviewed, NIH-sponsored scientific research. This, however, has alarmed the competition: not-for-profit publishers of prestigious journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine and The Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. The scholarly publications feel a threat to their bottom line. Like many information outlets, including newspapers, they are struggling to figure out how to turn online publishing into an economically sustainable model. Online competition from the government doesn't help. The private, not-for-profit journals offer articles that undergo more review and copy editing than those published on the NIH Web site. The additional scrutiny provides more safeguards against misleading the public about the extent and the promise of new cures and treatments. One way or another, pressure to put more breakthrough research on the Internet is bound to grow. One group of 68 not-for-profit medical and scientific publishers, which calls itself the DC Principles Coalition [DCPC], urges that the NIH Web site offer links to its members' Web sites. Makes sense. But Dr. Elias Zerhouni, the NIH director, has cast doubt on his agency's ability to interface effectively with the archives on the medical journals' Web sites. That sounds more like a failure of imagination than a failure of technical ability. It would serve the public well for NIH officials to cooperate with the broader scientific community on this. The potential of online publishing is too great to ignore, especially when questions of health hang in the balance.

Comment. The Tribune has been misled. The NIH already links to publisher versions of articles deposited in PMC under the NIH public-access policy. The DCPC wants the NIH to link to publisher copies instead of, rather than in addition to, hosting its own free online copies, a proposal that would reduce rather increase the likelihood of permanent free online access to publicly-funded research. Moreover, the NIH is already "cooperat[ing] with the broader scientific community" on access issues. The Tribune has mistaken the interests of working scientists for the interests of publishers. The Tribune has also bought the publishers' line that the NIH is "competing" with private-sector publishers, when in fact it is providing taxpayers with access to research for which they have already paid. The publishers are not asking for a free market, but for government protection to be the sole distributors of publicly-funded research. Finally, the Tribune has forgotten that the mission of the NIH is to advance research and healthcare in the US, not to protect publishers at the expense of research and healthcare. The increased traffic the editorial cites in its opening paragraph is proof that the NIH public-access policy is serving a public need.