Transcript Health Research Board

HRB and Open Access:
A Funders Perspective
Patricia Clarke,
HRB Senior Policy Analyst
Public sector funding flow to health care
and research
Relationship between government departments and
funders of health research in Ireland
Department
of Health
Department
of Finance
Department
of Education
& Skills
Department
of Jobs,
Enterprise &
Innovation
Department
of the
Environment
Community
& Local
Government
Department
of
Agriculture,
Fisheries &
Food
2010 Health-related Research Expenditure
Total R&D
expenditure 2010
Health-related
research expenditure
2010
% of total
spent on
health-related
€ 000
€ 000
%
Health Research Board
40,127
40,127
100
Science Foundation Ireland
171,290
73,169
42.7
*
*
*
Higher Education Authority
111,292
36,859
33
Environmental Protection Agency
13,640
685
5
Marine Institute
9,660
1,470
15.2
IRCSET
25,600
3,551
13.9
IRCHSS
14,400
1,100
7.6
Dept. Health and Children
5,241
5,241
100
Dept. Agriculture, Food & Fisheries
15,260
4,920
32.2
Enterprise Ireland
93,460
14,641
15.6
Industrial Development Authority
56,668
23,039
40.7
556,638
205,001
36.8
Research funding provider
Health Services Executive
TOTAL
HRB strategy – four strategic goals
1.
Drive the development of excellent clinical research
within a coherent health research system.
2.
Build the capacity to conduct high-quality
population health sciences and health services
research.
3.
Work with key partners to develop and manage
high-quality national health information systems.
4.
Generate evidence and promote the application of
knowledge to support decision making by policymakers and practitioners.
HRB Principles
•
Publicly-funded research should be made
available and accessible for public use as rapidly
as possible
•
Outputs should be peer reviewed
•
Models and mechanisms used must be a costeffective use of public funds
•
Outputs must be preserved and remain
accessible.
HRB position
Requires authors to maximise the
opportunities to make their results
available for free
Encourages authors to archive all
research papers – funded in whole or in
part by the HRB–in open access
repositories as soon as possible
following final publication
Encourages authors and publishers to
licence research papers such that they
may be freely copied and reused.
2009- 2010 HRB Outputs
Scientific
Knowledge
•
•
•
•
•
526 peer
reviewed pubs
80% high/ med
impact
1300 scientific
meetings (52
Key notes)
380+
collaborations –
2/3rds internat.
112 novel
techniques - 26
were new to the
world
Research Capacity
•
7 Clinician Scientists
•
84 post docs
•
106 post grad
completions
•
25% in PHS and HSR
•
40 healthcare
professionals up
skilling
•
117 follow-on awards
were secured by 41%
of awardees
Innovation,
Commercialisation
& Enterprise
Policy, Practice &
Health Benefits
•
•
•
•
17 awards informed
health policy
•
17 awards contributing
to diagnostic assays,
new treatments or
diagnostic tools
•
14 patent applications
•
6 awardees got market
development awards
•
2 licencing agreements
& 2 start ups
•
10 formal business
collaborations
21 awardees appointed
as policy advisors
30 awards improved
treatments, services
interventions &
guidelines
18 awards developed
innovations for health
service delivery or cost
savings
Grant Holder Pool 2000-2009
•
Total Number of grants = 1129
Number of unique grant holders = 735
•
•
Researchers selfarchive
Journal OA costs not
paid
JULIET database –
50+ Funders
mandates including:
• UKPMC Funders
Group
• NIH
• HHMI
• CIHR
Why is OA publication important for
Funders
•
Just funding the research is not enough – must ensure
widest possible dissemination and unrestricted access
to that research
•
Allow links and integration of outputs with other
resources ( new data mining techniques)
•
Evaluation of funded research
•
Preservation of digital record of health research
Greater access =greater impact of research
Issues to be resolved
Policies in place but to realise full potential of OA
still need:
•
More comprehensive and linked OA infrastructure
•
Improved compliance
•
Improved mechanisms for researchers to meet
payments
•
Clarification (and simplification) of publisher policy
•
Clarifying re-use rights with regard to author
manuscripts
Access to Infrastructure
46 HRB Host
Institutions
• Health Services
• Charities
• NGOs etc
Links to national
picture
Improving compliance
•
Problem in part – authors not self-archiving
•
•
Mitigated by awareness raising, and articulating
consequences of non-compliance…
but ..in part, publishers not having workflows
to support “author pays” model.
•
Elsevier – who have recently introduced an integrated OA
workflow – have seen significant increase in uptake of
“Sponsored Documents”
Clarifying publishers’ OA policy
/
Nuances of policy – bewildering to the
researcher
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No fee, no embargo – but full & immediate OA (e.g. BMJ research papers)
No fee, full OA, but 6 months embargo (e.g. Rockefeller Press)
Author-side payment – fully compliant (e.g. Elsevier, Wiley)
Author side payments – NOT compliant (e.g. AJTMH)
Self-archiving – must archive author version (e.g. AAAS )
Self-archiving – must archive publisher version (e.g. NEJM)
Self archiving – not compliant (as embargo too long) (e.g. AAN)
Future Plans
HRB
• Reviewing OA costs and infrastructure
• Preparing HRB policies on wider dissemination
and on research data
National level
• Funders Meeting June 2012
European level
• ESF/ EMCR Science Policy Briefing Open Access
in Biomedical Research July 2012
• Science Europe Working Group - Publication
service models and costs, research data
Funder Initiatives
•
•
•
•
•
Leadership – demonstrate engagement with issues,
raise awareness and compliance in research
community
Fund – cost of publications. Estimated investment
required to deliver full OA is 1-2% of research spend
(marginal to research costs).
Copyright – encourage (and eventually enforce)
author retention (involve publishers)
Evaluation – recognise intrinsic value of content of
paper rather than title of journal
OA research data