THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY. MY NAME IS JESSICA TUCKER AND I AM THE ACTING DEPUTY DISTRICT FOR OF THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE POLICY AT THE NIH. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY. FOR OUR VIRTUAL PUBLIC LISTENING SESSION ON THE NIH PLAN TO ENHANCE PUBLIC ACCESS TO RESULTS OF NIH SUPPORTED RESEARCH AND I'M JOINED HERE TODAY BY MR. JERRY SHEEHAN, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POL -- OF POLICY. BEFORE WE GET INTO HEARING FROM ALL OF YOU WHICH IS THE MAIN GOAL FOR TODAY WE WANTED TO START WITH A ROAD MAP FOR TODAY'S SESSION AND OUR HIGH LEVEL GOALS FOR HOLDING THE SESSION IN THE FIRST PLACE. JERRY AND I WILL START BY PROVIDING BACKGROUND ON NIH'S INTEGRATED APPROACH TO ADVANCING BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH THROUGH PUBLIC ACCESS. WE'LL HEAR COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT HAVE REGISTERED IN ADVANCE TO COMMENT ON THE PLAN. WE WANT TO EMPHASIZE HOW IMPORTANT PUBLIC FEEDBACK IS HERE. WE'RE STEWARDS OF THE INVESTMENTS AND WE'LL USE THIS FEEDBACK TO INFORM. 13 MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HAVE REGISTERED IN ADVANCE TO COMMENT SO WE EXPECT THE COMMENT PERIOD TO GO FROM 1:15 TO 1:55 P.M. WE'LL PROVIDE BRIEF FINAL REMARKS AT THE END. I WANT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF OVERVIEW TO BEGIN WITH. INCREASING ACCESS TO PUBLICATIONS AND DATA RESULTING OFFERS MANY BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE PUBLIC. DOING SO UPHOLDS NIH'S COMMITMENT TO RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF THE NATION'S INVESTMENT BY IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCESSIBILITY. AND PERHAPS A TIMELY EXAMPLE RIGHT NOW IS IN HOW IMPORTANT PUBLIC ACCESS HAS BEEN IN COMBATING THE PANDEMIC THESE PAST THREE YEARS. ONLY ELEVEN MONTHS FROM THE ISOLATION OF THE FIRST SARS-CoV-2 SEQUENCE TO GETTING VACCINATED AND THESE STATISTICS ON THE RIGHT SHOW HOW IMPORTANT THE ACCESS TO RESEARCH RESULTS HAS BEEN. ONE PARTICULAR HIGHLIGHT IS THAT THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY HAS SHARED GREATER THAN 500,000 PAPERS ON NIH'S PUBLIC REPOSITORY PubMed SITE. AND WE'RE ALSO BUILDING FROM VERY STRONG FOUNDATION HERE AT NIH. IN TERMS OF OUR SUPPORT OF PUBLIC ACCESS AND DATA SHARING AND WE'VE DEMONSTRATED THIS COMMITMENT FOR OVER TWO DECADES. WHILE I COULD GO INTO EXAMPLES WE WANT TO HIGHLIGHT JUST TWO TO START US OFF. FIRST, NIH'S 2008 PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY ENSURES THAT RESEARCH IS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FOR FREE. AND SECOND, OUR RECENTLY IMPLEMENTED POLICY ON DATA MANAGEMENT AND SHARING WHICH ENCOURAGES RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OF DATA THROUGH THE PIPELINE. SO IN 2008 CONGRESS DIRECTED NIH TO REQUIRE THAT ALL INVESTIGATORS FUNDED BY NIH SUBMIT OR HAVE SUBMITTED FOR THEM TO PubMed CENTRAL AN ELECTRONIC VERSION. TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION. THIS LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY WHICH IS OUR PUBLICATION ARCHIVE THAT IS MANAGED BY NIH'S NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE THAT HOUSES MILLIONS OF SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS INCLUDING 1.4 MILLION THAT WERE SUPPORTED BY NIH FUNDING. AS THESE NUMBERS SHOW THIS HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL HOWEVER WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO STRENGTHEN OUR SUPPORT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS. FOR EXAMPLE, ABOUT A THIRD OF THE ARTICLES SUBMITTED NOW ARE ALREADY PUBLICLY AVAILABLE NOW AND OBVIOUSLY WHEN IMPLEMENTED THE NEW EXPECTATIONS WILL BE ALSO ARTICLES THAT ARE NIH SUPPORTED WITHOUT THE EMBARGO. TO QUICKLY TOUCH UPON ANOTHER POLICY IS THE NIH POLICY FOR DATA MANAGEMENT SHARING. AND IT ESTABLISHES THE EXPECTATION TO MAXIMIZE THE APPROPRIATE SHARING OF SCIENTIFIC DATA GENERATED FROM NIH FUNDED OR CONDUCTED RESEARCH WITH JUSTIFIED LIMITATIONS OR EXCEPTIONSES AND IT HAS TWO BASIC REQUIREMENTS WHICH IS THE SUBMISSION OF A PLAN AND COMPLIANCE. AND WE'RE EAGER TO SEE HOW THIS ENHANCES DATA SHARING AND UTILITY OVER TIME. WE'VE DEVELOPED GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS TO HELP RESEARCHERS COMPLY WHICH YOU CAN ACCESS AT SHARING.NIH.GOV. I'LL PASS IT NOW OFF TO JERRY. >>GREAT. THANK YOU, JESSICA AND THANKS TO ALL OF YOU FOR JOINING US. JUST NOTED OUR NIH EFFORTS AND OUR PLAN ARE PART OF A MUCH BROADER U.S. GOVERNMENT WIDE EFFORT TO INCREASE ACCESS TO THE RESULTS OF OUR GOVERNMENT FUNDED RESEARCH. AND AS NOTED A LITTLE MORE THAN 10 YEARS AGO OSTP RELEASED A MEMO THAT ESTABLISHED SOME OF THE BASIC EXPECTATIONS FOR ACCESS TO FUNDED RESEARCH RESULTS. BUT WE'RE HERE TO TALK TODAY ABOUT WHAT IS NEW IN THE 2022OTSP EQUITABLE AND PUBLIC ACCESS MEMO. AND YOU CAN SEE SOME COMPARISON. OF COURSE NOTING THAT THE NEW WILL APPLY TO ALL AGENCIES. AND HAVE CALLED ON US TO DEVELOPER UPDATE OUR EXHIB EXISG PLAN. THEY ARE NOW CALLED TO BE MADE FREELY AVAILABLE IN DESIGNATED REPOSITORIES WITHOUT EMBARGO. WITH SCIENTIFIC DATA UNDERLYING ALSO BEING MADE AVAILABLE. BUT A CALL ON US TO SHARE THOSE THAT DON'T UNDERLIE. AND OF COURSE SUPPORT FOR METADATA AND PERSISTENT IDENTIFIERS FOR AWARDS, RESEARCHERS AND THE SPECTRUM OF RESEARCH OUTPUTS. SO LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. SO OUR NIH POLICY ON DATA MANAGEMENT AND SHARING WHICH WAS IMPLEMENTED AT THE END OF JANUARY OF THIS YEAR MEETS THE EXPECTATIONS ON PUBLIC ACCESS TO DATA. WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER TWO PILLARS? LET ME START WITH THE SECOND OF THOSE. WITH RESPECT TO METADATA THESE INCLUDE INFORMATION CONVEYED WITH PUBLICATION AND DATA TO ENSURE ATTRIBUTION AND APPROVE DISCOVERABILITY IN A WAY THAT HAS AN IDENTIFIER THAT IS UNIQUE AND PERSISTENT. OUR PLAN RECOGNIZES THAT WE HAVE A MUCH LONGER TIME FRAME FOR DEVELOPING A MORE CONCRETE PLAN AND POLICIES FOR IMPLEMENTING PIDS AND METADATA AND THAT IS OUTLINED IN OUR PLAN. WE HAVE PILOTED PROGRAMS IN THIS DOMAIN THAT WILL INFORM OUR FUTURE EFFORTS. SO FOR THE REMAINDER OF OUR REMARKS AND FOR MUCH OF OUR DISCUSSION TODAY WE'RE FOCUSING ON PUBLIC ACCESS T -- TO PUBLICATIONS. TO BUILD ON OUR CURRENT PROCESSES TO HAVE THEM MEET THE NEW REQUIREMENTS AND CONTINUE TO MONITOR AND ENSURE THAT FEES REMAIN REASONABLE AND THAT WE DON'T CREATE NEW INIQUITIES. LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH A COUPLE AND HIGHLIGHT THE PROPOSALS FOR MOVING FORWARD. THE FIRST IS AROUND ENSURING THAT PUBLICATIONS ARE FREELY AVAILABLE IN AGENCY DESIGNATED REPOSITORIES WITHOUT EMBARGO. WE'RE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE THIS. WE'RE ALSO EXPECT TO REQUIRE MANUSCRIPTS TO BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ACCEPTANCE. BUT WE'LL CONTINUE OUR PRACTICE OF ALLOWING JOURNALS THAT HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH NIH TO SUBMIT FINAL PUBLISHED ARTICLES ON THE AUTHOR'S BEHALF AT THE TIME OF PUBLICATION. THE NEW PRACTICE THAT WILL INSTITUTE IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THE ARTICLES AVAILABLE ON PMC AS SOON AS OUR PROCESS IS COMPLETE WITHOUT THE EMBARGO. ALSO TO CLARIFY RIGHTS THAT AUTHORS NEED TO RETAIN AND WE'RE MAKING SOME CLARIFICATIONS TO THE DATE OF PUBLICATION TO BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH OUR DATA MANAGEMENT. AND SHARING POLICY AND WITH PRACTICE WITHIN THE PUBLISHING COMMUNITY. THE MEMORANDUM ALSO CALLS US ON TO ACCESS REACH IN FORMATS THAT ALLOW FOR MACHI -- MILLION READABILITY. -- MACHINE READABILITY. BUT WE ALSO WANT TO WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP AND UPDATE THOSE STANDARDS TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE MEETING NEW EXPECTATIONS AROUND ACCESSIBILITY AND NEW FORMS OF REUSE AND WE'RE SEEKING PUBLIC INPUT AND IDEAS AND MAYBE WE'LL HEAR SOME OF THOSE TODAY FROM YOU. THE THIRD IS TO ALLOW REASONABLE COST IN THEIR BUDGETS. NIH ALREADY ALLOWS REASONABLE PUBLICATION COSTS TO BE CHARGED. AND WE DON'T IN OUR PLAN OUTLINE ANY SPECIFIC PUBLICATION OR BUSINESS MODEL WHETHER THAT IS SUBSCRIPTION OR OPEN ACCESS MODEL TO COMPLY. WE HOWEVER SAY WE'RE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE TO MONITOR TRENDS TO ENSURE THAT COSTS REMAIN REASONABLE AND THAT THE ABILITY TO PUBLISH REMAINS EQUITABLE AND ACCESS TO OUR PUBLICATIONS IS AS EQUITABLE AS POSSIBLE. I'M TURNING BACK OVER TO YOU TO WRAP UP HERE. >>THANK YOU SO MUCH, JERRY. YES. WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO HEAR FROM YOU WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO DO RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE ALREADY PUT OUR PLAN OUR PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN NIH HAS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT THROUGH THE RFI AND DETAILS ARE SHOWN HERE. AND WE CERTAINLY EXPECT TODAY'S COMMENTS TO COMPLIMENT AND INFORM THAT ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK THAT WE GET THROUGH THE RFI. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS THROUGH THE RFI AS WELL. WE ARE ALSO WORKING TO COORDINATE WITH OTHER AGENCIES. AND AS A REMINDER THIS PART OF THE PROCESS IS THIS IS JUST A PLAN AT THIS STAGE. WE'RE GOING TO THEN CONTINUE SORT OF A NORMAL POLICY MAKING PROCESS WHERE WE WILL PUT A DRAFT REVISED PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. WHICH WILL BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENT AND ENGAGEMENT WITH THE FULL POLICY ISSUED BY THE END OF 2024 AND IMPLEMENTATION BY THE END OF 2025. SO PLEASE STAY TUNED. BEFORE WE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT I WANT TO KNOW THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE WAYS TO HAVE MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE WITH YOU. HERE ARE SOME WAYS THAT YOU CAN STAY ENGAGED THROUGH THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE POLICY AND WE ALWAYS WELCOME YOUR THOUGHTS THROUGH THESE PATHWAYS. NEXT WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. SO OUR LOGISTIC'S TEAM WILL INVITE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAVE REGISTERED IN ADVANCE TO COMMENT. AND WE'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR EACH COMMENTER AND THIS WILL BE TRACKED BY A LIVE COMMENTER. FINALLY I'LL REMIND FOLKS THAT COMMENTS DON'T NEED TO BE LIMITED TO THE FOUR TOPIC AREAS HERE BUT THESE ARE SOME OF THE AREAS THAT WE FLAGGED IN OUR RFI. SOME OF THE PARTICULAR TOPICS WE'VE FLAGGED ARE ISSUES SURROUNDING EQUITY AND ACCESS AND ACCESSIBILITY AS WELL AS METHODS FOR MONITORING COSTS AND IMPACTS AND CONSIDERS TO INCREASE FINDBILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF RESEARCH. SO AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO HAND THINGS OVER FOR MANAGEMENT OF OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. >>THANK YOU. OUR FIRST PUBLIC COMMENTER FOR TODAY IS ANGELA COCKRAN. , ANGELA YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES BEGINNING NOW >>TODAY I'M REPRESENTING A COLLABORATIVE GROUP OF MEDICAL AND BIOMEDICAL SOCIETIES WITH A FOCUS ON CLINICAL MEDICINE. TOGETHER WE REPRESENT OVER 250,000 U.S. BASED MEMBERS. WE PUBLISH THE MOST HIGHLY RATED JOURNALS. AS LEADING MEDICAL SOCIETIES -- THIS IS PARAMOUNT AND INFORMS PATIENT CARE EVERYWHERE. CONDUCTING VIGOROUS AND TIMELY PEER REVIEW AND MANAGING POTENTIAL CONFLICTS REQUIRES STAFF TIME AND TRAINING AS WELL AS ACCESS TO EXPENSIVE TOOLS. TO A VARIETY OF AUDIENCES THROUGH INVITED COMMENTARIES AS WELL AS INVESTMENTS IN PODCASTS AND MORE. THESE ACTIVITIES ARE EXPENSIVE BUT CONTRIBUTE TO OUR MISSIONS TO WIDELY DISSEMINATE COMMENTARY. BUT IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO CHARGE PROCESSING CHARGES FOR PUBLICATIONS. WHILE LARGE PUBLIS PUBLISHERS ME ABLE TO WEATHER THIS HIGHLY SELECTIVE JOURNALIST -- GIVEN THIS PROPOSAL FOR MANY OF US PRESERVING THE PREDESCRIPTION MODEL IS THE MOST SUSTAINABLE WAY FORWARD. POLICIES THAT RESTRICT OUR ABILITY TO REALIZE OUR FULL RIGHTS MAY BE EVEN MORE FINANCIALLY DEVASTATING. WE IMPLORE YOU TO ENSURE. SUCH POLICY WOULD BE AN EFFECTIVE MANDATE. WHILE THE PROPOSED NIH PLAN SUPPORTS A GREEN ROUTE IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT THE NIH UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS ROUTE WILL NOT ALWAYS BE AVAILABLE AS MANY WILL HAVE NO CHOICE TO BE OPEN ACCESS JOURNALS. THE AVAILABLE CONTENT MAY FORCE THE FLIP TO GOLD. THE NIH WOULD IMPLEMENT AND MAINTAIN HIGH QUALITY JOURNALS. I HAVE MADE THIS STATEMENT TODAY ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS, AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN THORACIC SOCIETY, ENDOCRINE SOCIETY AND THE AMERICAN PHYSIOLOGICAL SOCIETY. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. OUR NEXT PUBLIC COMMENTER IS -- YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES BEGINNING NOW. >>THANK YOU. I'M A THIRD YEAR PhD STUDENT AT MIT AND WORKING ON SYSTEM'S BIOLOGY. THE PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN -- I THINK IS A REALLY GOOD STEP TO ENSURE THAT BEING -- IS NOT THE ONLY OPTION AVAILABLE TO RESEARCHERS. HAVING THE OPTION ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH HOWEVER. THERE IS A LOT OF PRESSURE TO PUBLISH IN HIGH IMPACT JOURNALS AND I THINK THE NIH TODAY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEVEL THE FIELD BY CREATING A CONSISTENT FORM. RESEARCH CAN BE EVALUATED ON ITS MERITS. SO ALLOWING PUBLICATION COSTS TO BE PAID JUST IN GRANTS, I WOULD NOT ADVOCATE FOR SOMETHING THIS DRASTIC DUE TO THE EQUITY CONCERNS. AT LEAST TODAY. BUT I STILL THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFIT TO NOT ALLOW FINAL PUBLISHED ARTICLES TO BE ARCHIVED. AT LEAST MAKE THEM LESS PROMINENT AND MODERNIZING -- WHEN I'M LOOKING FOR A PDF IT'S EASIER TO READ. BUT THAT IS I THINK PMC HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE IT THE DEFAULT AREA. AND ANOTHER IMPORTANT STEP -- SEVERAL THIRD PARTY PLATFORMS -- HAVE COMMUNITIES OF RESEARCHERS THAT ARE DISCUSSING THESE ARTICLES. BUT INTEGRATING SOMETHING LIKE THIS -- ARE HAVING A PLUG IN SYSTEM -- INSTEAD OF A JOURNAL REVIEW. AND SO I GUESS GENERALLY I THINK A WORLD IN WHICH PMC BECOMES THE PLACE TO READ WOULD STREAMLINE AND MAKE IT MORE EQUITABLE. SO IT WOULD BECOME THE -- DEFAULT PLACE. ONE EXAMPLE WOULD BE A GOOD OPEN SOURCE PLATFORM THAT COULD BE INSPIRATION. SO DESIGN CHOICES CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE. SO I HOPE THAT NIH WILL CONSIDER THE OUTCOMES THAT WOULD BE MOST BENEFICIAL FOR SCIENCE AND MAKE THE DECISIONS TO GET US THERE. THANK YOU SO MUCH >>THANK YOU. OUR NEXT PUBLIC COMMENTER IS GARY McDOWELL. GARY, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES BEGINNING NOW. 7 >>HI. I'M A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER WHO RELIES ON FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH TO CARRY OUT MY WORK. HOWEVER WHILE TAX DOLLARS CONTRIBUTED BY MYSELF AND OTHER AMERICANS ARE USED BY NIH SUPPORTED RESEARCHERS TO FUND THEIR SUBSCRIPTIONS TO ACCESS IT ANY ONE NOT IN ONE OF THESE INSTITUTIONS FACES BARRIERS. I'M GRATEFUL TO THE NIH'S ONGOING EFFORTS. IT IS ALWAYS INTRIGUED ME THAT WE WOULD RELY ON A MINORITY OF THE SCIENTISTS. IT'S NOT JUST PEOPLE LIKE ME. I WORK WITH PROJECTS ENGAGING STUDENTS IN RESEARCH, MANY AT MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTIONS WHO ARE ALSO DENIED ACCESS BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT AT A UNIVERSITY THAT CAN AFFORD TO PAY THE SUBSCRIPTIONS. THE CURRENT MODEL USED TO SHARE THEIR WORK THAT IS FOCUSED NOT ON DISSEMINATING RESEARCH BUT ON ADVANCING ACADEMIC CAREERS WHO PUBLISH THESE MAGAZINES. THESE SHOULD NOT BE THE PRIORITIES OF THE NIH IN MY OPINION. THIS SITUATION IS HAVING A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE WORKFORCE. THE CURRENT GROUP IS ENCOUNTERING THE POSITION THAT THE POSTDOC IS NOT A TRAINING POSITION TO SIGNIFY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE PRODUCTIVE. FOR CAREER PROGRESSION. I WANT TO MOVE TO PREPRINTS. ONLY SHARING NOVEL DATA. MOST DOES NOT FIT AND GOES UNPUBLISHED. IT IS NOT UP TO ANY ONE SCIENTIST TO DETERMINE WHAT DATA THEY'VE GENERATED OR TO SOLVE SOME OTHER PROBLEM ESPECIALLY IF IT'S NEGATIVE DATA. I LOVE SOLVING CHALLENGING PROBLEMS. THIS CURRENT WAY OF SHARING RESULTS RESTRICTS THAT EFFORT AND THE EFFORTS TO SHARE YOUR WORK IN COMMUNITIES WHO MAY NEED IT. MOVING TO A CONSULTING POSITION WITH THE PEOPLE WHO PAID ME TO DO IT HAS BEEN A REFRESHING CHANGE. I'M EXCITED TO SEE WHAT NIH COMES UP WITH. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. >>THANK YOU. OUR NEXT PUBLIC COMMENTER IS TOM -- TOM, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES BEGINNING NOW. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOU JESSICA AND JERRY FOR BRINGING US ON THIS CALL TODAY. I'M SPEAKING TO YOU TODAY FROM CHICAGO. FRONTIERS IS A LEADING RESEARCH PUBLISHER AND OPEN SCIENCE PLATFORM. THE SCIENCE WE PUBLISH IS GLOBALLY SHARED, FREE TO READ AND OPEN TO ALL. THE MISSION IS TO MAKE SCIENCE OPEN. THAT IS OUR SOCIAL PURPOSE AS A BUSINESS AND IT'S WHY WE WHOLLY SUPPORT THE 2022OTSP GUIDELINES AND WHY WE'RE DRAFTING A FORMAL RESPONSE TO THIS PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN. WE'RE SPECIFICALLY -- HAPPY TO SEE ABOUT FINDBILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF RESEARCH. WE'VE MADE THOUSANDS OF PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES AVAILABLE IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT EMBARGO. AN ARTICLE THAT CANNOT BE FOUND CAN'T BE SHARED AND CITED AND SPUR OTHERS TO MAKE DISCOVERIES. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT FACILITATES THIS DISCOVERABILITY BECAUSE THE ARTICLES IN THE UNDERLYING DATA ARE TRANSMITTED TO A REPOSITORY. AND THE METADATA FROM GOLD OPEN ACCESS FILES ARE IN READABLE FORMATS. AS MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE OPENING THIS METADATA INCLUDES THE PIDS SUCH AS ORCHID FOR AUTHOR IDENTIFICATION, TAGS TO DENOTE GRANT FUNDING, RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS TIED TO THAT ARTICLE. ALL OF THAT SAID THE NEW FEDERAL GUIDELINES MANDATE ONLY PUBLIC ACCESS COMMONLY KNOWN AS GREEN OPEN ACCESS AND THAT IS GOOD. GREEN OPEN ACCESS REMOVES BARRIERS AND DOES NOT CREATOR PERPETUATE INEQUITY. BUT THAT BEING SAID THE MECHANISMS FOR FINDING AND READING AND SHARING GREEN FILES CAN VARY WIDELY. SO TO MAKE THE MOST OF THIS NEW BOUNTY OF PUBLIC FILES THAT IS GOING TO APPEAR INSTITUTIONS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO INVEST IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND KEEP PAYING FOR SUBSCRIPTIONS TO EASE THIS GREEN ONLY SEARCH AND DISCOVERY BURDEN. SO IT CAN BE A DOUBLE INVESTMENT FOR SOME END USERS AND GOLD OPEN ABSCESS IS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO ENSURE EQUITABLE PUBLIC ACCESS. IT'S A SIMPLE TRANSPARENT AND COST EFFECTIVE WAY TO MEET THE NEEDS AND THE PROMISE FOR THE FULLY ACCESSIBLE SCIENCE THAT WE'RE ALL LOOKING FOR. WE KNOW WE NEED TO WORK HARD TO EXPLAIN THE BENEFITS OF SHARED SCIENCE AND WE STAND READY TO SUPPORT THE NIH AND ITS PARTNERS TO THAT END. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY AND THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. >>THANK YOU. NEXT, WE HAVE KATIE TEEN JAMES. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES BEGINNING NOW >>THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENTS. MY NAME IS KATIE STEEN-JAMES. AT SPARK WE BELIEVE THAT SHARING KNOWLEDGE AS I HUMAN RIGHT. NIH'S DRAFT PLAN PROVIDES A STRONG FOUNDATION FOR THE AGENCY AND THE PUBLIC TO FULLY REALIZE THE BENEFITS OF OPEN SCIENCE. ELIMINATING THE EMBARGO ALLOWS FREE ACCESS TO THE RESULTS OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH. THIS OPENS UP END LESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW COLLABORATIONS AND ACCELERATES THE SPEED WITH WHICH SCIENTISTS CAN DISCOVER. AND WE SUGGEST THAT NIH CONSIDER SOME ADDITIONAL STEPS AND TO ADDRESS INEQUITIES IN THE EXISTING RESEARCH ECOSYSTEM. THE AGENCY CAN ENSURE BASKETBALL EQUITY BY MAKING IT CLEAR THAT INVESTIGATORS CAN FULLY COMPLY WITH THE POLICY BY DEPOSITING THEIR AUTHOR'S SEND MANUSCRIPT. AND THERE IS NO CHARGE TO DO SO. AUTHORS MUST BE CLEAR THAT ANY FEE CHARGED TO THEM BY A PUBLIER IS A PUBLICATION FEE. IT IS CRITICAL THAT INVESTIGATORS DO NOT CONFLATE COMPLIANCE -- WHICH CREATES SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS TO MAKE RESEARCH AVAILABLE. NIH CAN ALSO IMPROVE THE UTILITY OF ITS RESEARCH OUTPUTS BY ENSURING THAT THEY CARRY A LICENSE THAT ALLOWS FOR FURTHER REUSE. THESE RIGHTS ARE KEY TO ENSURING THAT ARTICLES CAN BE FULLY USED BY OTHER RESEARCHERS, EXPERTS AND ENTREPRENEURS. THE EFFECTIVENESS WAS MADE CLEAR IN THE EARLY STAGES OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC WHEN PUBLISHERS MADE ARTICLES IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE UNDER ARTICLE LEVEL LICENSES THAT ALLOWED FOR IF YOU REUSE. WITHIN THE FIRST WEEKS THESE ARTICLES HAD BEEN ACCESSED AND DOWNLOADED OVER 2 MILLION TIMES. NIH SHOULD ENSURE THAT ITS POLICY INSTRUCTS INVESTIGATORS TO RETAIN THE FULL SUITE OF REUSE RIGHTS NEEDED ON BOTH THE MANUSCRIPT AS WELL AS FINAL PUBLISHED ARTICLES. WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH NIH TO FULLY ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OUTLINED IN THE NELSON MEMORANDUM. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. OUR NEXT COMMENTER IS JESSICA. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES BEGINNING NOW >>I'M EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF -- ASA BIO. WE ARE SO EXCITED TO SEE THE NIH'S PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS PLAN AND THE EMPHASIS ON EQUITY AND COST. TO ECHO -- PREPRINTS PROMOTE EARLY SHARING. ENABLE MORE RESEARCH TO BE SHARED, ACCELERATE DISCOVERY. AND THEY CAN ALSO SUPPORT RIGOR AND REPRODUCIBILITY. WE BELIEVE THAT PREPRINTS ARE A WAY TO ADDRESS BOTH EQUITY AND COST ISSUES. PREPRINTS ARE FREE TO POST MEANING THAT THEY DON'T EXACERBATE RACIAL DISPARITIES WHICH COULD AFFECT EQUITABLE ACCESS TO PUBLISH. WE CALL ON THE NIH TO RECOGNIZE PREPRINTS THAT ARE IDENTICAL TO THE LATEST ARTICLE VERSION AS AN OPTION FOR COMPLIANCE. PREPRINTS OPERATE AT RELATIVELY LOW COSTS PROVIDING A HIGH RETURN ON INVESTMENT. AT THE SAME TIME THEY LACK SUSTAINABLE FUNDING MODELS. THEY ARE A PUBLIC GOOD AND WE CALL ON THE NIH TO FUND SERVERS TO MAINTAIN THIS VALUABLE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE COMMUNITY. WE ENCOURAGE TO MAKE THIS AN OPEN ACCESS POLICY BY ENCOURAGING TO POST WITH A MORE PERMISSIVE LICENSE IN ALIGNMENT. WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE MORE EMPHASIS ON INCREASING FINDBILITY AND TRANSPARENCY. WE ARE-EXCITED TO SEE THE SUCCESSFUL NNLM PREPRINT PILOT AND ENCOURAGE THE NIH TO EXPAND THIS TO ALL PREPRINTS. AND FURTHERMORE AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED THERE IS A GROWING ECOSYSTEM OF PREPRINT REVIEW. NOW BEING REVIEWED. SO WE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT NNLM DATABASES CAPTURE AND LINK TO THESE REVIEWS AND OTHER FORMS TO CAPTURE THE COMMENTARY THAT IS HAPPENING AROUND PREPRINTS. DISCOVERABILITY AND METADATA, WE ENCOURAGE INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION. AND CONTRIBUTE TO EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURES FOR PIDS. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY. >>THANK YOU. OUR NEXT PUBLIC COMMENTER IS -- MYAK -- YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES BEGINNING NOW. >>I'M A POSTDOC AT HOWARD MEDICAL SCHOOL AND I'M A PRESENT -- TODAY I WANT TO ADVOCATE FOR INTEGRATING PREPRINTS IN THE NIH PUBLIC ACCESS FRAMEWORK FROM THE POSTDOC POINT OF VIEW. -- TO IMPROVE HUMAN HEALTH. BUT WE FACE INTENSE PRESSURE IN SECURING AND MAINTAINING -- DUE TO THE PHYSICALLING REASONS. SLOW UNRELIABLE AND RESTRICT ACCESS TO PUBLIC DATA. -- -- -- AS A POSTDOC I FULLY SUPPORT THE MEMORANDUM ON MAKING DATA PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR HAVING PUBLIC SESSIONS AND FEEDBACK. BUT THE NIH SHOULD TAKE MORE MEASURES IN PROTECTING CAREER RESEARCHERS ESPECIALLY FROM UNDER REPRESENTED BACKGROUNDS. I'LL OUTLINE THREE MAJOR ARGUMENTS. FIRST THE PACE IS IN START CONTRAST. THE TIME FOR RESEARCH PUBLICATION CAN TAKE SEVERAL MONTHS TO A YEAR. FASTER ACCESS CAN HELP POSTDOC ESPECIALLY FOR DIRECTION. SECOND, THE EMBARGO -- BEING LIFTED MANY CANNOT AFFORD THE PRESCRIPTION. THEY DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN FUNDING AND CANNOT PUBLISH OPEN ACCESS FEE. I CAN ATTEST THAT FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. THE REQUEST TO ACCESS PUBLIC DATA, CODES ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE HONORED THAN A SENIOR ESTABLISHED RESEARCHER. IN LIGHT OF THESE ARGUMENTS I URGE NIH TO INTEGRATE PREPRINTS -- AND THE FRAMEWORK -- -- -- AND GLOBALLY EQUITABLE -- THIS MEASURE WOULD ALSO BE CRITICAL IN FORMING RESEARCH ASSESSMENT. I RECOMMEND NIH SUPPORT AND FUND -- CONVERT -- METADATA INTEGRATION AND OTHER TOOLS THAT WILL MAKE THEM EASILY DISCOVERABLE. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK HERE. >>THANK YOU. OUR NEXT PUBLIC COMMENTER IS CARL'S MAX WELL. CARL, * YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES BEGINNING NOW. >>GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M CARL -- MAXWELL. PUBLISHING HAS BEEN CRITICAL FOR CENTURIES. THEY STILL INSTILL FAITH IN THE VALIDITY OF SCIENCE. MANY ARE A DIRECT RESULT OF OUR HARD WORK AND INVESTMENT. WE DEVELOP THESE ENHANCEMENT BECAUSE OF OUR PASSION FOR SCIENCE. WE BELIEVE THE MARKETPLACE IS CRITICAL FOR AUTHORS AND THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AND THE QUALITY. THE NIH RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF SEEKING POST PEER REVIEW ARTICLES. BUT THESE ESSENTIAL SERVICES HAVE A COST. THE COST IS RECOOPED THROUGH SUBSCRIPTIONS. THE MEMO SENT SHOCK WAVES AND RAISES MANY QUESTIONS AND ISSUES. THERE IS AMPLE EVIDENCE. ASSERTIONS TO OPEN ACCESS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED FOR FREE WITHOUT DAMAGING THE QUALITY OF THE RECORD ARE NOT SERIOUS. THE COST OF PEER REVIEW DOES NOT DISAPPEAR. IT MAY COST MORE NOT LESS THAN THE CURRENT HYBRID SYSTEM. IF IT IS NOT VIABLE THEN THE AUTHOR PAY MODEL -- BECOMES -- IS THROUGH A VIBRANT, COMPETITIVE AND DIVERSE MARKETPLACE. WE BELIEVE HELPING RESEARCHERS UNDERSTAND A BUDGET FOR COST AS WELL AS NIH SEEKING ROBUST FUNDING IS THE BEST WAY TO ENSURE AUTHORS HAVE A WIDE ARRAY. THIS WOULD LIKELY DRIVE AUTHORS TO OTHER PUBLISHERS. THIS WOULD HARM THE QUALITY AND INTEGRITY AND ALSO DEVASTATE HUNDREDS OF SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES PLAYING A CRITICAL ROLE. ARTIFICIAL PRICE CONTROLS ALSO REDUCE INCENTIVE TO INNOVATE. IT IS IMPORTANTRESEARCHERS NEEDY INCLUDING NONCOMMERCIAL TO ALLOW THEM TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THEIR WORK. THIS WOULD LIMIT THE AUTHOR'S OPTIONS TO BRING THEIR WORK TO THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENT >>THANK YOU. OUR NEXT PUBLIC COMMENTER IS -- YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES BEGINNING NOW. 7 >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M KRISTEN RATTAN. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE. THERE ARE THREE TOPICS I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS. THE FIRST IS EVIDENCE. WHILE THERE IS A BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT OPEN ACCESS PUBLISHING HAS INCREASED THE VISIBILITY OF ARTICLES OVER-ALL WE DON'T REALLY KNOW THE IMPACT OF OPEN RESEARCH INCLUDING DATA SHARING ON ISSUES OF EQUITABLE ACCESS, GREATER COLLABORATION BETWEEN RESEARCHERS, BETTER OUTCOMES FOR HUMANITY. WE BELIEVE IN A OPEN WILL LEAD TO MORE INCLUSION BUT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DATA TO SUPPORT THAT. WE NEED TO STUDY THE IMPACT OF OPEN AND LEARN MORE ABOUT WHICH APPROACHES AND BEST PRACTICES WORK. ICOR IS ONE OF SEVERAL CONDUCTING RESEARCH. BUT THESE ARE VERY EARLY DAYS. NIH CAN MATERIALLY SUPPORT THIS AS A FIELD OF STUDY SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF POLICY DECISIONS, HOW BEST TO IMPLEMENT AND TRACK COMPLIANCE AND WHAT THE IMPACT OVER-ALL IS. MY SECOND TOPIC IS CONVERGENCE. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL FOR INTENSE, CONVERGENCE ON BEST PRACTICES AND EMERGING STANDARDS. THE COMMUNITY HAS BUILT INFRASTRUCTURE AND BEST PRACTICES OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS. BUT EVEN SO METHODS OF TRACKING ARE NOT CONSISTENT. WITH AGENCIES, FUNDERS AND INSTITUTIONS COUNTING AND MEASURING OPEN ACTIVITIES DIFFERENTLY WE WON'T BE ABLE TO MAKE APPLE TO APPLE COMPARISONS. THIS WILL BE DIFFICULT TO ASSESS BARRIERS AND TRACK OUR PROGRESS. THE THIRD TOPIC IS INCENTIVES. ULTIMATELY WE NEED TO REWARD THE BEHAVIORS THAT WE WANT TO SEE. FUNDERS AND INSTITUTIONS NEED TO ACTIVELY INCENTIVIZE IT. FOR FUNDERS THIS MEANS MAKING FUNDING DECISIONS BASED ON OPRAHS AND INCLUDING THEM. FOR INSTITUTIONS THIS MEANS CHANGING REAPPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION. IF WE DON'T ACTIVELY CHANGE THE CARROTS AND STICKS WE WON'T CREATE THE CHANGE THAT WE NEED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>THANK YOU. OUR NEXT PUBLIC COMMENTER IS PETER SUBER. PETER, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES BEGINNING NOW. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M PETER SUBEE. IN THE NIH RFI YOU SAY THAT THE NIH IS DEVELOPING LANGUAGE THAT THE NIH SUPPORTED INVESTIGATORS MAY USE FOR SUBMISSION IN ORDER TO RETAIN RIGHTS. I WANT TO APPRECIATE THAT. NIH IS PLANNING TO SUPPORT RIGHTS RETENTION. WE NEED RIGHTS RETENTION IN ORDER TO SUPPORT OPEN LICENSES. AND THEN ALSO AGENCIES TO SUPPORT REUSE RIGHTS. BUT THE NIH METHOD WILL DEPEND ON AUTHORS TO INCLUDE SPECIAL LANGUAGE. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE LIMITATION OF THAT APPROACH. IF THE SPECIAL LANGUAGE IS EQUIVALENT TO AN AUTHOR -- THE METHOD WILL BE TOO WEAK. AUTHOR -- ARE PROPOSED. THEY ARE NOT BINDING ON THEIR OWN. PUBLISHERS CAN TAKE THEM OR LEAVE THEM. BUT IF THE SPECIAL LANGUAGE IS NOT -- EQUIVALENT THEN THEY WILL FAIL TO INCLUDE IT. DIFFERENT AUTHORS MAY SUBMIT DIFFERENT LANGUAGE WITH THE EFFECT OF RETAINING CERTAIN SETS OF RIGHTS. THAT WILL MAKE IT MUCH MORE COMPLICATED AND TIME-CONSUMING AND UNEVEN. AND THE NIH WON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT AUTHORS USED THE SPECIAL LANGUAGE AND WON'T KNOW IF IT HAS THE RIGHTS NEEDED. THERE MUST BE A FAIL-SAFE ON THE FUNDER SIDE AND THE NIH TO ENSURE THAT ALL GRANTEES RETAIN THE SAME SET OF RIGHTS. ASKING AUTHORS TO INCLUDE SPECIAL LANGUAGE IS SIMILAR TO THE APPROACH TAKEN BY PLAN S. BUT THE FUNDERS ARE AWARE OF THE PROBLEMS I JUST MENTIONED AND THEY AVOID THEM BY TAKING STEPS INDEPENDENT. ITS FULL METHOD ENSURES THIS. IT ALSO ENSURES THE APPLICATION OF A STRONG OPEN LICENSE TO THE FINAL RESULTS. I RECOMMEND THREE STEPS. FIRST USE THE FEDERAL PURPOSE LICENSE. SECOND, SPELL OUT THE FEDERAL PURPOSE THAT YOU SEE IN MAKING NIH FUNDED RESEARCH OPEN TO THE WORLD NOT JUST THE U.S. AND MAKING IT REUSABLE. AND THIRD IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR -- PLEASE TALK FURTHER WITH THEM. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SUGGEST SOME CONTACT NAMES. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING >>NEXT IS ASHLEY FARLEY. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES BEGINNING NOW. >>GREAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MY NAME IS ASHLEY FARLEY AND I'M A PROGRAM OFFICER AT THE BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION. AND WE ARE A PART OF PLAN S. IT REQUIRES ANY PEER REVIEWED ORIGINAL RESEARCH JOURNAL ARTICLE OR OPEN ACCESS AND OUR POLICY REQUIREMENTS ARE ALSO MET IF THE AUTHOR SEND MANUSCRIPT IS OPEN AND SEND ALSO WITH THE LICENSE. WE APPLAUD THIS AS IT HAS WELCOMED A MUCH NEEDED POLICY CHANGE. HOWEVER IMPLEMENTATION SPECIFICS WILL BE IMPORTANT TO ENSURE THAT IT BECOMES MORE EQUITABLE AND AN OPTION FOR ANY RESEARCHER ANYWHERE. THE FOLLOWING ARE SOME OF OUR LEARNINGS. EQUITY WITHIN THE IN THE NEXT IL FOCUS ON AN EQUITABLE ROUTE FOR ANY AUTHOR FUNDED OR NOT. I RECOMMEND A SHIFT FROM FOCUSING ON THE VERSE OF RECORD AS THE MOST IMPORTANT VERSION. SUCH AS PREPRINTS. ALONG WITH PROVIDING MULTIPLE ROUTES IT WILL BE CRITICAL TO ENSURE THAT AUTHORS RETAIN THEIR RIGHTS. IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAFEGUARD AUTHOR CHOICE AND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THE NIH SHOULD USE ITS VOICE AND INFLUENCE TO PUSH BACK AND DECOUPLE RESEARCH DECIMATION. WITH YEARS OF PAYING FEES WE FOUND THAT IT IS NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TO DEFINE WHAT A REASONABLE FEE FOR PUBLICATION IS. THIS RESULTS IN EXPENSIVE PUBLISHING. EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THERE ARE ASSOCIATED COST BUT THERE IS LITTLE TRANSPARENCY INTO WHAT THESE COSTS ARE. WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON PUBLISHERS WHO HAVE PROVIDED TRANSPARENCY DATA. THE BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION WISHES TO SHOW SUPPORT AND WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THIS DRAFT PLAN. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. OUR NEXT PUBLIC COMMENTER IS ANDREW -- ANDREW, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES BEGINNING NOW. >>HI, THERE. I'M ANDREW AND I'M THE POLICY AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MANAGER AT TAYLOR AND FRANCIS. ONE OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST LEADING ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS. MY FOCUS IS ON EQUITY AND PUBLICATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR NIH SUPPORT INVESTIGATORS BUT WE'LL PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS WITH ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK. ENHANCING EQUITY AND DIVERSITY REQUIRES MULTIPLE STAKEHOLDERS TO WORK COLLECTIVELY TO INCREASE CHANNELS AND OPPORTUNITIES. IT REQUIRES PUBLISHERS TO FIND APPROPRIATE FUNDING OPTIONS. WE MUST EMPOWER MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES BY PROVIDING THEM ACCESS TO TRAINING. IT REQUIRES FUNDERS TO INVESTIGATE THEIR PROCESSES FOR GRANT SELECTIONS SO THAT GRANT OPPORTUNITIES ARE NOT EXCLUSIVELY AWARDED TO THE SAME HIGHLY RESOURCE RESEARCHERS AND INSTITUTIONS. UNIVERSITY EFFORTS TO EXPAND OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH INSTITUTIONAL GRANTS CAN HELP REDUCE INEQUITIES AND PROVIDE DIVERSITY OF VOICES COLLABORATIVE COMMITMENT TO TACKLE THE CHALLENGE ENSURES THAT ALL KNOWLEDGE MAKERS ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRIBUTE. -- WE ARE TAKING THE FOLLOWING STEPS. 300 DEDICATED JOURNALS AND MORE THAN 95% OFFERING THE PATHWAY. WHICH COMBINES THE BENEFITS OF FREE PRINTING TO ENSURE QUALITY AND TRANSPARENCY. THE FULLY TRANSPARENT APPROACH REDUCES BIAS. THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS OPEN SO RESEARCHERS CAN BE ASSURED THAT THEIR RESEARCH IS BEING ASSESSED ON THE MERIT. -- THIS AIMS TO PROVIDE CLEAR PRACTICAL ADVICE AND INTRODUCE THE KEY PRINCIPLES TO CAREER EARLY RESEARCHERS FROM UNDER REPRESENTED GROUPS. THIS ENCOURAGES GREATER INCLUSION. WE SUPPORT THE TRANSFORMATIVE INSTITUTIONS B -- WE ARE ALSO TE WINNER OF THE 2021 PUBLISHER INTERNATIONAL EXCELLENCE AWA A AWARD. WE BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC ACCESS THAT DELIVERS CHANGE TO IMPROVE LIVES. WE THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU IN THE FUTURE TO MEET THESE BOLD GOALS >>THANK YOU. OUR LAST PUBLIC COMMENTER IS CAROLINE SUTTON. CAROLINE, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES BEGINNING NOW. >>THANK YOU. AND YOU THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE A FEW COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE MEMBERS OF STM WHO INCLUDE SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES, UNIVERSITY PRESSES AND COMMERCIAL PUBLISHERS WHO PUBLISH THE VAST MAJORITY OF LITERATURE IN ENGLISH. BETWEEN THE RELEASE OF THE POLICY THE LANDSCAPE HAS CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY. TODAY STM STANDS FOR ADVANCING OPEN AND TRUSTED RESEARCH FOR RESEARCHERS AND THE REST OF THE SOCIETY CAN RELY ON INFORMATION THAT IS CREDIBLE, ACCESSIBLE, LINKED INTO PERFECT PET FEW TEE. *. SO STM SHARES NIH'S GOALS OF INCREASING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCESSIBILITY BOTH BY ENABLING ACCESS TO THE ARTICLES AND THE SHARING OF DATA AND OTHER OUTPUTS. WE WANT TO DO SO WITH EQUITY IN MIND. TO ENSURE DIVERSE VOICES CAN PARTICIPATE AND THAT DIVERSE VOICES CAN USE AND BUILD ON THE INFORMATION. THIS IS A COMPLEX UNDERTAKING THAT WILL REQUIRE ENGAGEMENT WITH ALL SECTORS. AND IT'S CRITICAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ACHIEVING BROAD AND EQUITABLE ACCESS WILL BE COMPLEX AND WILL NOT COME WITHOUT COSTS. STM AND OUR MEMBER PUBLISHERS CONTINUE TO INVEST THAT ENABLES THE SHARING OF THE LATEST DISCOVERIES AND INNOVATIONS AND SUPPORTS SCIENCE THROUGH STANDARDS AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENSURES ARTICLE AND DATA RELATED TO RESEARCH ARE FINDABLE, ACCESSIBLE AND REUSABLE. TO ENABLE THIS WE NEED EVIDENCE BASED POLICY THAT PRESERVES THE ABILITY FOR PUBLISHERS TO MAKE THESE INVESTMENTS. STM STANDS READY TO WORK WITH NIH AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS AND DEVELOP APPROACHERSERS THAT DELIVER ON POLICY AND GOALS. SO FOR EXAMPLE WE RECENTLY LAUNCHED AN OPEN ACCESS DASHBOARD THAT PROVIDES DATA ON OPEN ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC. WE WOULD WELCOME DISCUSSIONS ON WHAT KIND OF DATA MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO SUPPORT EVIDENCE BASED DECISION MAKING AND NIH AND HOW WE CAN BUILD-MONTH-OLD ELSE TO EXPLORE THE IMPACT BEARING COMPETITION LAWS OF COURSE. AND WE'LL EXPAND ON THIS IN OUR SUBMISSION AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO FURTHER DIALOGUE. I'M HANDING BACK FIVE SECONDS HERE. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THIS MEETING. >>THANKS, LESLIE. I JUST WANT TO TAKE A FEW QUICK MOMENTS TO WRAP THIS UP AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS WIDE ARRAY OF COMMENTS. WE WANT TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME OUT OF YOUR BUSY QUESTIONS ALLS TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE PLAN. WE WILL CONSIDER THESE COMMENTS AS WELL AS THOSE THAT WE RECEIVE FROM WRITTEN COMMENTS. FOR ANY OF OUR SPEAKERS OR ANYONE VIEWING THIS LISTENING SESSION THE RFI IS STILL OPEN FOR COMMENT THROUGH APRIL 24. SO FEEL FREE TO SUBMIT ANY FURTHER COMMENTS AND I'LL BRING UP THAT SLIDE IN A MOMENT. WE WELCOME IN AND ALL FEEDBACK. AND JERRY I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO CLOSE US OUT >>THANK YOU, JESSICA AND THANK YOU ALL WHO CONTRIBUTED COMMENTS TODAY AND THOSE WHO LISTENED IN AS WELL. THEY WILL BE HELPFUL IN OUR NEXT STEPS. I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT TODAY'S SESSION WAS RECORDED SO YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND PLAY IT BACK AGAIN IF YOU WOULD SO LIKE. WE LOOK FORWARD TO SHARING MORE WITH YOU AS OUR POLICY MAKING PROCESS CONTINUES HERE. A NEXT STEP IS REVIEWING OUR PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY WHICH GOES OUT AS A DRAFT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AVENUE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE. KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR THAT AND FOR FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO COMMENT OVER COURSE OF THE NEXT YEAR. WE WILL CONTINUE TO PURSUE OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIALOGUE AND FEEDBACK AS OUR POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND PROCESSES CONTINUE. AND AGAIN BUILDING ON THE HELPFUL LISTENING SESSION TODAY AND ON THE COMMENTS THAT WE LOOK FORWARD TO RECEIVING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS TODAY. FOR YOUR INTERESTS AND ATTENTION TO THIS IMPORTANT TOPIC AS WE MOVE FORWARD. WE LOOK FORWARD TO OUR CONTINUE ENGAGEMENT. THANK YOU.