canadian institutes of health research

Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Policy on Access to Research

Outputs

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) has just announced

their Policy on Access to Research Outputs. Fran�ais.

Under this new policy, as of January 1, 2008, grant recipients must

make every effort to ensure that their peer-reviewed research articles

are freely available as soon as possible after publication...by

depositing the article in an archive, such as PubMed Central or an

institutional repository, and/or by publishing results in an open

access journal. A growing number of journals already meet these

requirements and CIHR-funded researchers are encouraged to consider

publishing in these journals...grant recipients are now required to

deposit bioinformatics, atomic, and molecular coordinate data, as

already required by most journals, into the appropriate public

database immediately upon publication of research results..

Researchers are encouraged to make use of the SHERPA RoMEO Publisher

Copyright Policies and Self-Archiving service to determine whether

publishers policies are compliant with the policy, and the policy

clarifies that article processing fees for open access publishing are

an eligible expense under the Use of Grant Funds.

Notable Quotes from the Press Release:

Timely and unrestricted access to research findings is a defining

feature of science, and is essential for advancing knowledge and

accelerating our understanding of human health and disease," stated

Dr. Alan Bernstein, President of the Canadian Institutes of Health

Research. "With the development of the internet it is now feasible to

disseminate globally and easily the results of research that we fund.

As a publicly-funded organization, we have a responsibility to ensure

that new advances in health research are available to those who need

it and can use it - researchers world-wide, the public and policy

makers.

This open access policy will serve as a model for other funding

agencies, said Dr. James E. Till of the Princess Margaret Hospital in

Toronto [Chair of the Task Force that developed this policy]. The

policy will leverage taxpayers' investment by accelerating research

and by fostering its broader application.

Strengths of this policy include strong support for immediate open

access, and support for open access publishing, including economic

support for article processing fees. Traditional subscription-based

journals can easily comply with the policy through an enlightened

self-archiving policy, as the vast majority of journals also do, and

making this clear through the Sherpa Romeo list. Another area of

strength is the expectation of no more than 6 months delay before open

access.

Kudos to the CIHR, President Dr. Alan Bernstein and Task Force Chair

Dr. Jim Till for yet another stellar example of Canadian Leadership in

the Open Access Movement.

Update 10:30 a.m. - Peter Suber's comments, from:

Open Access News:

* This is a major policy with a major loophole: "Publications must be

freely accessible within six months of publication, where allowable

and in accordance with publisher policies." The exception swallows the

rule. Any publisher who doesn't want OA within six months, or ever,

can easily block it, and CIHR invites them to do so. But for that, the

policy would be exemplary: the mandatory terms, the reasonably short

embargo, the equal standing of central and distributed repositories,

the willingness to pay publishing fees at fee-based OA journals, the

OA data policy, and the implicit sanction for non-compliance.

* The draft policy released last October did not contain this

loophole. On the contrary, it said that "A publisher-imposed embargo

on open accessibility of no more than 6 months is acceptable." BTW, it

also implemented the dual deposit/release strategy (or what Stevan

Harnad calls immediate deposit / optional access), requiring immediate

deposit and permitting delayed OA. But CIHR dropped that too from the

final version of the policy.

* The Wellcome Trust and several of the Research Councils UK have

found an elegant way to close the loophole the CIHR that left open:

they require OA archiving on a certain timetable, as a condition of

funding, and take advantage of the fact that researchers sign funding

contracts before they sign copyright transfer agreements with

publishers. In short, they require grantees to live up to their

funding contracts and, therefore, to transfer copyright on their

funded work, if at all, only subject to the terms of the prior funding

contract. If a publisher is unwilling to let the author comply with

the funding contract, the author must look for another publisher. I do

hope the CIHR will move in this direction at its next policy review,

and close or at least shrink the gigantic loophole in the present

policy.

Update 10:54 - Michael Geist's comments - see original by clicking on

Michael Geist for links:

The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the federal government's

health research granting agency, today unveiled a new open access

policy for research it funds beginning in 2008. According to the new

policy, researchers will be required to make every effort to ensure

that their peer-reviewed publications are freely accessible through

the Publisher's website or an online repository within six months of

publication. Critics will rightly note that the policy is not

iron-clad - publication in an online repository is conditional on the

publisher's policy. Accordingly, if a publisher refuses to allow

researchers to post their articles, the researcher does not violate

the grant requirements by not posting. This leaves publishers with a

measure of control, though a growing number of them do permit this

form of archiving (database of publisher policies here).

While it is tempting to say that this does not go far enough, it is an

exceptionally important development for open access in Canada.

First, even with its faults, the policy will help ensure that five

percent of the world's health research scholarship - tens of thousands

of articles (CIHR funds approximately 5,000 researchers annually

producing as many as 30,000 articles) - are generally freely

available.

Second, this is the second stage in the CIHR's move toward open

access. Clinical trial data is already made available online and the

granting council supports expenses related to open access publishing.

As the global move toward open access accelerates, it is well

positioned to do more.

Third - and perhaps most important - it places renewed pressure on

SSHRC and NSERC, the other two major granting councils, to at least

match CIHR. The same principles apply - taxpayer funded research

should be made available to the public that pays the bills and with

CIHR now on board, it is now clearly time for the other two councils

to adopt open access policies.

Heather's comments:

The loophole mentioned by Peter Suber is indeed there, however I think

it is important not to overlook some very strong points in this

policy, even with the loophole. Grant recipients are directed to the

SHERPA RoMEO list, which will need to add a category for CIHR

compliance. It seems obvious to me that only publishers allowing

immediate self-archiving, or within 6 months at most, will be eligible

for the check mark beside CIHR compliance. Or, am I missing something?

An important contribution here is the strong emphasis on immediate

open access, or no more than a six month delay at maximum; a

refreshing change from recent debates, which suggest that a 12 month

delay is acceptable.

My personal opinion is that NO delay is acceptable. This research is

paid for by the Canadian taxpayer; in order to see that we all receive

maximum impact for our research dollar, we should insist on immediate

OA. This is well within our rights; the contributions from the

taxpayer and other Canadians (directly through research funding,

indirectly through support for universities and student tuitions) are

far more substantial than those of the publishing industry, important

though the latter are. The rights of the public good and the major

payers for the research should prevail.

The CIHR policy does not demand immediate OA, but strongly supports

it. My opinion remains that this is a strong policy, which other