SPEC Kit 311: Public Access Policies · 51
Challenge 1 Challenge 2 Challenge 3
Authors primarily want to have
immediate access to the NIH
submission link. They are directed to
the link.
Authors want to know what a
particular publisher requires for NIH
research. The libraries may call or e-mail
the publisher, direct the author to the
Romeo/Sherpa site, etc.
Authors want someone to handle
mediated submissions and our
institution is not equipped to do that.
Confusion about author rights and
copyright ownership. The Library already
offers extensive copyright support
services and resources, and those are
valuable in educating authors on a
case-by-case basis.
Confusion about the difference
between the final author manuscript
and the publisher PDF. In some ways
this is a bigger challenge: Many
publishers have policies that make
it hard to comply, or permit authors
to comply only under less-than-ideal
circumstances. There is no solution for
this except to explain, ad nauseum, that
in most cases you cannot deposit the
final publisher PDFin PubMed Central
because the publisher does not allow it.
Confusion about which works require
deposit. We created a flow chart that
outlines this determination process very
simply and clearly. It helps.
Copyright — use CARL documents. Individual journal policies — SHERPA
site.
General reluctance of authors.
Explaining that authors do not
need to pay publisher. Authors can
deposit research for free if they do it
themselves.
Faculty are uninterested in the subject,
too busy to care about it, and have no
incentive to change.
Faculty member did not understand
why some submissions had an
unresolved status. He tried to submit
them retroactively and that created
problems.
A research contract signed prior to
the enactment of the NIH PAP runs
through 2014. Question: Do articles
resulting from this funding have to be
submitted? Confirmation from NIH
that these articles did not have to be
submitted.
Challenge 1 Challenge 2 Challenge 3
Authors primarily want to have
immediate access to the NIH
submission link. They are directed to
the link.
Authors want to know what a
particular publisher requires for NIH
research. The libraries may call or e-mail
the publisher, direct the author to the
Romeo/Sherpa site, etc.
Authors want someone to handle
mediated submissions and our
institution is not equipped to do that.
Confusion about author rights and
copyright ownership. The Library already
offers extensive copyright support
services and resources, and those are
valuable in educating authors on a
case-by-case basis.
Confusion about the difference
between the final author manuscript
and the publisher PDF. In some ways
this is a bigger challenge: Many
publishers have policies that make
it hard to comply, or permit authors
to comply only under less-than-ideal
circumstances. There is no solution for
this except to explain, ad nauseum, that
in most cases you cannot deposit the
final publisher PDFin PubMed Central
because the publisher does not allow it.
Confusion about which works require
deposit. We created a flow chart that
outlines this determination process very
simply and clearly. It helps.
Copyright — use CARL documents. Individual journal policies — SHERPA
site.
General reluctance of authors.
Explaining that authors do not
need to pay publisher. Authors can
deposit research for free if they do it
themselves.
Faculty are uninterested in the subject,
too busy to care about it, and have no
incentive to change.
Faculty member did not understand
why some submissions had an
unresolved status. He tried to submit
them retroactively and that created
problems.
A research contract signed prior to
the enactment of the NIH PAP runs
through 2014. Question: Do articles
resulting from this funding have to be
submitted? Confirmation from NIH
that these articles did not have to be
submitted.
