Mots-clefs: NIH policy Afficher/masquer les discussions | Raccourcis clavier

  • Hans Dillaerts le 21 February 2012 à 21 h 53 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: NIH policy, ,   

    Publication of NIH funded trials registered in cross sectional analysis :

    « Objective To review patterns of publication of clinical trials funded by US National Institutes of Health (NIH) in peer reviewed biomedical journals indexed by Medline.

    Design Cross sectional analysis.

    Setting Clinical trials funded by NIH and registered within (, a trial registry and results database maintained by the US National Library of Medicine, after 30 September 2005 and updated as having been completed by 31 December 2008, allowing at least 30 months for publication after completion of the trial.

    Main outcome measures Publication and time to publication in the biomedical literature, as determined through Medline searches, the last of which was performed in June 2011.

    Results Among 635 clinical trials completed by 31 December 2008, 294 (46%) were published in a peer reviewed biomedical journal, indexed by Medline, within 30 months of trial completion. The median period of follow-up after trial completion was 51 months (25th-75th centiles 40-68 months), and 432 (68%) were published overall. Among published trials, the median time to publication was 23 months (14-36 months). Trials completed in either 2007 or 2008 were more likely to be published within 30 months of study completion compared with trials completed before 2007 (54% (196/366) v 36% (98/269); P<0.001).

    Conclusions Despite recent improvement in timely publication, fewer than half of trials funded by NIH are published in a peer reviewed biomedical journal indexed by Medline within 30 months of trial completion. Moreover, after a median of 51 months after trial completion, a third of trials remained unpublished. »

    URL :
    doi: 10.1136/bmj.d7292

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

  • Hans Dillaerts le 10 February 2012 à 14 h 21 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: , NIH policy, , , , ,   

    The Future of Taxpayer-Funded Research: Who Will Control Access to the Results? :

    « This report examines the costs and benefits of increased public access, and proposals to either extend or overturn the NIH policy. It looks at increased public access to research results through the lens of “openness,” with a particular interest in how greater openness affects the progress of science, the productivity of the research enterprise, the process of innovation, the commercialization of research, and economic growth. »

    URL :

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

  • Hans Dillaerts le 6 February 2012 à 21 h 30 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: NIH policy, , , ,   

    The Influence of the National Institutes of Health : Public-Access Policy on the Publishing Habits of Principal Investigators :

    « The mandatory NIH public-access policy, which became effective on April 7, 2008, requires the NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs) to self-archive to the National Library of Medicine subject repository PubMed Central a manuscript’s electronic version immediately upon publication, which will then be available to the public free of cost the latest after a twelve-month embargo period. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), a non-profit open-access publisher in health sciences, publishes seven journals in the health sciences field (PLoS ONE, PLoS Biology, PLoS Medicine, PLoS Computational Biology, PLoS Genetics, PLoS Pathogenes and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases) and submits to PubMed Central all the published articles, irrespective of the funder of the research results. The PIs who had published in one of the PLoS journals were chosen based on the journals’ established high impact factor immediately after their creation. The PIs’ motivation to publish in one of the seven PLoS journals was unknown. Whether the NIH public-access policy has affected the PIs’ publishing decisions was also unknown.

    A random sample of NIH-funded PIs, who had published in one of the PLoS journals between the years 2005- 2009, was selected from the RePORTER database. During the period
    March-May 2011, forty-two PIs were interviewed using SkypeTM software, and a semi-structured open-ended interview protocol was followed. The participants were divided into two groups; the pre-mandate PIs, who had published in one of the seven PLoS journals during the period 2005-2007 and the post-mandate, who had published in the PLoS journals the during period 2008-2009. The publishing habits of these two groups were compared, in order to reach an understanding about their publishing decisions.

    Based on the findings, the NIH-funded PIs choose the PLoS journals due to their high impact factor, fast publication speed, fair peer-review system and the articles’ open-access availability. Although the PIs agree with the premise that publicly funded research must be distributed for-free to everyone who has funded it, the steps required to comply with the policy were perceived to be time consuming. Since conformity with the policy is essential, the participants’ goal is to ensure that the manuscripts will appear to PubMed Central, which either can be self-archived by the PIs, by an administrative assistant or by the journal.

    The NIH public-access policy did not cause either an increase in the PIs’ open-access awareness or a change in their publishing habits. The open-access advocates were supporters of the immediate free access to scientific information before the policy and provided their manuscripts free-of-cost before the policy’s mandate. The non-open-access advocates choose their publications based on quality criteria such as the journal’s prestige, impact factor, speed of publication and the attracted audience, while the article’s open-access availability is considered to be a plus. Furthermore, since a large number of journals comply with the NIH-policy, the participants did not have to change their publishing habits. »

    URL :

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

  • Hans Dillaerts le 26 August 2010 à 12 h 36 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: NIH policy, ,   

    Publishing Practices of NIH-Funded Faculty at MIT :
    « Faculty and researchers who receive substantial funding from NIH were interviewed about their publication practices. Qualitative data was collected from interviews of eleven faculty members and one researcher representing six academic departments who received NIH funding. Interview responses were analyzed to identify a representative publication workflow and common themes related to the publication process. The goals of this study were to inform librarians about faculty publication practices; to learn how faculty are affected by and responding to NIH publication policy changes; and to inform planning and discussion about new services to support NIH compliance in addition to general faculty publishing.
    Major themes from the interviews included consistency in publishing workflows, but variety in authorship patterns and in data management practices. Significant points of pain for authors included difficulty finding quality reviewers, frustrating submission processes, and discomfort about the implications of publication agreements. Some authors found the NIH submission requirement to be burdensome, but most assumed their publishers were taking care of this process for them. Implications for library services are considered. »
    URL :

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

  • Hans Dillaerts le 24 July 2010 à 18 h 18 min Permalien
    Mots-clefs: NIH policy, ,   

    Campus perspective on the National Institutes of Health public access policy :
    « From the Background section: This communication reports the results of a survey conducted in the spring of 2009 to gauge awareness of the NIH public access policy among faculty and other academics at UCSF, as well as their feelings (positive and negative) about the open access movement. The UCSF Library has participated in many efforts in recent years to raise campus awareness about the possibilities of open access publishing, and this survey provided an opportunity to understand how best to focus future outreach to faculty on this topic. »
    URL :

    Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Facebook

Écrire un nouvel article
Prochain article/commentaire
Article/commentaire précédent
Afficher/masquer les commentaires
haut de page
se connecter
Afficher/masquer l'aide
shift + esc