Session description for March 27, 2008 ACRL OnPoint chat session:

NIH Public Access Policy
(11 a.m Pacific | 12:00 p.m. Mountain | 1:00 p.m. Central | 2:00 p.m. Eastern)

Conveners: Karen Williams, Associate University Librarian for Academic Programs, University of Minnesota Libraries, ACRL Scholarly Communication Committee member; and Linda Watson, Director, Health Sciences Libraries, University of Minnesota Libraries and president of the Association of Academic Health Science Libraries.

Co-sponsored by: the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries, the Association of Research Libraries, the Greater Western Library Alliance, and SPARC the (Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition).

Now that the NIH Public Access Policy is mandatory, libraries could leverage this opportunity on campus. Discuss actions your library is taking or could take, such as:

  • Educating authors
  • Offering deposit services
  • Partnering with your office of sponsored research

Suggested background reading:

(NOTE: ACRL OnPoint is a live series of informal monthly chat sessions that provide the opportunity to connect with colleagues and experts to discuss an issue of the day in academic and research librarianship. All ACRL OnPoint chats are free and open to the public. Sessions are unmoderated, 30-45 minutes in length and take place in a Meebo chat room. While no registration is necessary to participate, ACRL recommends creating a quick and easy Meebo account for the best experience while participating in ACRL OnPoint discussions/events. For upcoming chats or archvies of other sessions see  http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlproftools/OnPoint/onpoint.cfm)

Archive transcript for March 27, 2008 ACRL OnPoint session:

Below is the chat session archive. We invite you to continue the discussion on the ACRL Insider.

10:31 dwfree  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U--YM6w1Meo ACRL Test 3

10:36 kurac hi

10:47 hslic_reference Hello--testing from New Mexico.

10:48 danream testing from new mexico? los alamos?

10:48 dwfree Hello New Mexico

10:48 lindawatson Hello New Mexico. Minnesota hears sees you!

10:48 cnelson_utpa Hi from South Texas

10:49 hslic_reference Hi, not Los Alamos--Albuquerque. Hi Linda in MN, say hi to Erinn from janis

10:49 dwfree Hi Linda - Is it as nasty up your way as here in Chi?

10:49 cnelson_utpa Carl from Edinburg

10:49 lindawatson Not nasty, no snow today. Just blah

10:50 cnelson_utpa You poor northerners

10:50 dwfree Weird combo of snow, rain and sleet here. I miss Atlanta.

10:50 danream sunny and 70 in virginia today

10:50 lorregis Should we be expecting audio?

10:50 biblioteks Hi from McGoogan

10:50 dwfree No audio. Just text chat.

10:50 lorregis tnx

10:50 cnelson_utpa 85 here in Texas

10:51 nwoelfl And another cheery hello from McGoogan Library at University of Nebraska Med Center

10:51 frauline testing from NYU

10:52 bondjd Hello from Texas Christian University here in Fort Worth!

10:52 lindawatson A favor for older eyes: how about changing your font to 12?

10:52 cnelson_utpa OK

10:52 amurrell how's this?

10:53 roneef Hi from Nashville -- Ronee Francis

10:53 rickettk testing from NC

10:54 dsulibrarians Hello from Madison, SD.

10:54 MollyK also testing from NC

10:55 debcrand Hello from North Shore-LIJ in NY

10:55 JuliePW Hello from Bothell, WA

10:55 hslkate Hello from NC

10:57 lindawatson Hi Karen (from across the river!)

10:58 sarlicat Testing

10:58 karenwilli Hello everyone. Welcome to the first OnPoint chat.

10:58 lukethelibrarian hello from san antonio -- university of texas health science center

10:59 sarlicat Should there be audio?

10:59 lindawatson No audio - just text. Hope our typing and spelling is up to it!

10:59 dwfree No audio. Just text chat.

10:59 sarlicat Great! thanks for the confirmation

10:59 lukethelibrarian just make sure to type loud ;-)

11:00 karenwilli Hi all. Looks like it's time to begin.

11:00 lindawatson Shall we get started? We're 11 days away from the implementation of the NIH Policy. What strategies have been successful on your campus in getting the word out to researchers?

11:00 sarlicat presentations--customized for the department

11:01 karenwilli I see Wayne Loftus signed on. Do you want to share what we've been working on at MN?

11:01 lorregis We're working with the Vice President for Research in developing some information resources.

11:01 hslic_reference Three of our faculty have put up a nify interactive website. hsc.unm.edu/library. Look under More Information in right hand column.

11:01 waloftus We've been coordinating with the Sponsored Project Administration to divide up the work, creating a single contact point which will then triage any questions to the appropriate resources.

11:02 hcorbett Yesterday we presented a poster session on the mandate at our university's annual Research and Scholarship Expo. It was a great opportunity to talk with faculty and grad students.

11:02 waloftus We've also been directly addressing as many audiences as we can get in front of, putting announcments wherever we can, and we've created a website that outlines the details from an institution-specific perspective.

11:03 mullalyquijasm We are on the agenda for our animal users group meeting.

11:03 lindawatson A poster session seems like a great opportunity for one on one consultation

11:03 karenwilli What are you hearing as you work with faculty? What questions do they have?

11:03 hcorbett Yes -- I should also mention that we copresented the poster with two biology faculty who surveyed their colleagues and grad students, and provided some tabular data on their responses for the poster.

11:05 thecat Our faculty have lots of questions. Many of them resent the burden of complying, but a few are more positive about it.

11:05 lindawatson Most of the faculty questions I've heard so far have been around the rights issue. What are the policies of their journals, how do I know?

11:06 sarlicat Some journal policies make the process of retaining rights invisible

11:06 sarlicat but there is still the issue of PIs having to approve the PDF and the Web versions via NIHMS email.

11:07 karenwilli We've been positioning the Libraries as a source of support -- trying to avoid being seen as the compliance people. We'll help with questions about that, but don't the policing role.

11:07 MollyK that's one area where I'm confused: do the PIs approve the versions, or do the authors? what happens when the PI isn't the author or even a co-author? who approves then?

11:07 sarlicat When i say invisible i mean that some publishers make this easy for authors by allowing authors to comply as well as submitting

11:08 lindawatson Many of us are preparing support at all levels. How many of you think faculty will want the library to do the submission on their behalf?

11:08 sarlicat For third party submissions--it is my understanding that a PI will receive two emails from NIHMS--first is "Approve PDF" and the second is "Approve Web Version."

11:09 lorregis I think they'd like it. I'm considering it because we have only a couple dozen PIs that will be effected by the policy.

11:09 thecat We're offering that service and *lots* of people perk up when we tell them about it in training sessions, but so far nobody has requested the service

11:09 mullalyquijasm I see that as a role for the library.

11:09 hslic_reference We decided to provide info about the submission process but not to do the actual work.

11:09 sarlicat We submit on behalf of authors and it is well received.

11:09 HDCatNCState I think the nih FAQ says that the PI is responsible, regardless of being an author

11:10 nwoelfl How do you handle the proof-reading issues, sarlicat?

11:10 karenwilli Those of you submitting for authors -- do you also try to get the articles in your IR -- if you have one?

11:10 sarlicat Yes, the NIHMS tutorials indicate that PI is responsible even if they are not an author.

11:10 lindawatson For those of you doing the submitting, who is doing it? What kind of service structure are you setting up to accommodate?

11:10 MollyK does responsible equal having approval rights? if the PI didn't author the article, how would he/she be able to determine that it was correctly reformatted by NIH?

11:10 catlib56 We also offer to submit on their behalf but also no takers so far.

11:10 sarlicat No, we are keeping the IR and the NIH Public Access Policy parts separate.

11:10 debcrand If you are going to provide the service of library submissions for authors, are any of you willing to share the process you have set up for doing that?

11:11 catlib56 We encourage authors/PIs to submit through us so that we can also include in our IR

11:11 catlib56 We have an information page that links to a simple form-- but not as simple as the NIH one (shh-- don't tell) bec. we want a little more info for our IR

11:11 sarlicat I'm happy to share information--just contact me at ----------------

11:12 debcrand please explain "IR"

11:12 catlib56 I can share info including our web pages. email -----------------------

11:12 catlib56 Institutional Repository

11:12 dwfree Tech note: If you copy and paste a URL into the chat box it should be a live link people can follow. Use the http://

11:12 thecat we only serve as third party submitters, the PI still has to approve the PDF and web version

11:13 nwoelfl Ah, now I've figured out who you are, sarlicat. We've looked to your Wash U website as a good model.

11:13 hslic_reference If you're also submitting to the IR, are you coaching re. copyright (e.g. modify the copyright agreement to include both PMC and IR)?

11:13 lukethelibrarian IR = institutional repository

11:13 sarlicat Thanks!

11:13 catlib56 We have TWO sets of agreements; one for NIH/PMC and one for our IR

11:14 thecat This is our page -

http://guides.lib.uiowa.edu/nihpublicaccess

11:14 catlib56 One "carrot" we are offering to encourage PIs to submit through us is that we will partner w/ them to determine rights

11:14 thecat Our legal counsel wants to handle rights issues, so we refer to them

11:15 catlib56 Yes, it's important to be in close contact w/ University Counsel; all our agreements are reviewed by UC

11:15 karenwilli Can you describe the rights "partnership" a little more?

11:15 sarlicat That is a fine line--guidance and actual advice on retaining rights, isn't it?

11:16 dwfree Tech note: Click on the URL and not "show now" to launch a URL in your browser

11:16 catlib56 PIs/authors don't have a problem filling out the forms because they are So Easy. but they are confused by whether they are cleared to contribute to NIH/PMC. Basically, we offer to research for them, and confirm our findings

11:16 sarlicat We provide guidance to allow the author to make up their own mind. At no point do we offer firm advice. Anything beyond that we refer them to our Office of General Counsel.

11:17 lindawatson Interesting re your legal counsel - what does he/she think about the publishing agreements they're seeing? Had they been aware of them before this? What steps is counsel taking with publishers' policies who don't permit deposit?

11:17 jeanneaz When we created our web help page, we partnered with General Counsel. We created a devoted mailbox for faculty NIH questions that the Libraries oversee. General Cousel will answer the questions we feel we cannpot rightfully answer.

11:17 catlib56 We don't claim to be a legal service, only to share results of our research w/ them, e.g. standard policies found on publishers web sites, Sherpa/Romeo summaries, etc.

11:17 catlib56 We're also adapting the Addendum to work for the NIH mandate

11:18 sarlicat We have yet to come across a publisher that refuses an author the right to comply.

11:18 sarlicat We have had publishers refuse authors the right to post manuscripts to PMC that date from pre-2005.

11:18 amperry Re: catlib56, I think that's a great way to use our strengths to help - we know how to research!

11:18 thecat I think those questions are still to be determined, since the policy isn't in effect yet.

11:18 lukethelibrarian oops, said my message was too long... let me try again... i'd like to make a suggestion:

11:18 karenwilli Jeanneaz and others -- how do you call faculty attention to your services? Is you research office linking to you?

11:18 sarlicat This is something of interest to our authors--posting all of their work on PMC regardless of when it was published.

11:18 lukethelibrarian might we perhaps agree on a common "tag" that we could use when posting materials to del.icio.us or ma.gnolia (like UNM's and Iowa's webpages)...

11:19 lukethelibrarian or flickr (like hcorbett's poster) or slideshare.net or whatever...

11:19 lukethelibrarian that way they could all be easily gathered together using something like technorati, even RSS-syndicated?

11:19 nwoelfl Have any of you seen an offer from Elsevier to upload on behalf of the authors they publish? Our VC for research appeared to receive such an offer but I've lost the messge her forwarded me?

11:19 thecat Yes, we had a faculty member tell us about that

11:20 thecat but it doesn't appear on any of their public web pages - seems to be a communication only with the author

11:20 catlib56 Is that by special arrangement or is it their new policy?

11:20 sarlicat define "upload"

11:20 sarlicat is this the same as submit?

11:20 nwoelfl upload = submit to the NIH manuscript system

11:20 thecat as best we can tell by what the faculty member told us, Elsevier said they would submit for the faculty member

11:20 jeanneaz We have coordinated efforts with several offices on campus, Research being among them. They cite our mailbox on their webpage and mentioned it in their letters to NIH PIs on campus.

11:20 thecat but that's all second-hand, unconfirmed

11:21 sarlicat it is my understanding that Elsevier submits on behalf of authors and has done so for awhile?

11:21 catlib56 Our Office of Sponsored Research wants the libraries to take the lead on this bec. it's really the institution that's on the line

11:21 hcorbett Elsevier's listing on Sherpa Romeo states that they will submit NIH authors' articles to PubMed after 12 months

11:21 HDCatNCState Does anyone know if Sherpa/Romeo is being updated with this new policy?

11:21 catlib56 And they want to make sure Univ. is in compliance

11:22 catlib56 They want to link to our pages from their web pages

11:22 nwoelfl what's sherpa romeo?

11:22 catlib56 Yes, I have already seen the "NIH" policy referenced

11:22 waloftus Elsevier will act as a third-party submitter, much as any of us would. They're not offering to submit the final pdf, merely the manuscript. The PI will still need to approve the pdf and web-versions.

11:22 hslic_reference SHERPA/Juliet tracks funding mandates

11:22 thecat Yes, we coordinated with legal and also with the Vice President for Research - and the VPR announced our training and our website in the campus grants bulletin

11:22 sarlicat  

http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorsview.autho…

--Info on Elsevier's services for NIH funded authors.

11:22 roneef  

http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo.php

11:23 thecat nice, thanks for finding that

11:23 lukethelibrarian RoMEO does have a field for "Mandated OA" that includes an indication of compliance/noncompliance with the NIH policy

11:23 lindawatson Yes, Elsevier will submit an author's manuscript on their behalf. The author will then get an email from PubMed Central to verify and proof the rendering into PMC web format.

11:23 catlib56 Anyone else interested in having NIH offer an upload "pathway" from IRs to NIH/PMC? So far, only batch or automated route is for publishers

11:23 digital_librarian YES!

11:24 catlib56 If enough of us band together, we won't have to do each one by hand

11:24 karenwilli Yes, that would be great.

11:24 debcrand As I understand, NIH has not incorporated a way to copy the Office of Sponsored Research that the submission was done. Anyone planning on getting involved to assist in tracking this and how?

11:24 hslic_reference what about a load from PMC to the IR?

11:24 devakosr We, the U of Toronto would be interested in having an upload pathway - also to comply w/ the Cdn Institute of Health Research Mandate in the long awaited PMC Canda

11:24 rommel10 Hello from Hunter C NYC

11:25 karenwilli Welcome to those just joining us.

11:25 digital_librarian so far, loading from PMC to IR is illegal

11:25 hslic_reference oh, thanks for the info...didn't know that

11:25 clayton_c Illegal? How so?

11:26 digital_librarian on NIH FAQ page it is strictly prohibitted

11:26 devakosr but linking to content in pmc from your ir is fine - no full text, just metadata though

11:26 digital_librarian correct

11:26 hslic_reference is it b/c not all stuff in

11:26 hslic_reference PMC is able to be in your IR b/c of copyright?

11:27 amperry many of the publishers agreements specifically allow a copy in PMC - not other IRs

11:27 digital_librarian yes

11:27 devakosr many of the publishers agreements specifically allow a copy in PMC - not other IRs
[14:27] digital_librarian: can you give us an example?

11:29 clayton_c Which is more common: author gets agreement from publisher to post a copy in IR, or IR simply links to existing copy in PMC?

11:29 digital_librarian an example of what we cannot do is batch load all the info we can find about our faculty from PMC and put it in our IR

11:29 roneef would it be possible to offer a service where research is automatically uploaded to PMC from your IR?

11:29 digital_librarian full text

11:30 hslic_reference How is anyone planning to track compliance rates?

11:30 amperry an easy example are publishers that already work with PMC - they do automatically deposit an article there. But that doesn't necessarily mean it can be deposited in your IR w/o permission

11:30 sarlicat Isn't compliance the onus of the Office of Research or equivalent?

11:30 catlib56 We're positioned to automatically upload all NIH-funded research from our IR to PMC

11:31 digital_librarian i think it would be absolutely wonderful if we began uploading from IR to PMC

11:31 lindawatson No suprise that most of the uncertainty is around rights management - on both our authors part and our part in looking for linkages bewteen PMC and our IRs.

11:31 catlib56 Yes, the rights issues are sticky. That is also the most time-consuming part

11:31 HDCatNCState catlib56, i'm interested in finding out how you positioned yourself that way?

11:32 HDCatNCState our research office is interested in using the IR to help check compliance

11:32 sarlicat Yes i agree with Linda's comment--that is why we are keeping IR and the NIH policy separate--too much confusion for our authors.

11:32 karenwilli Is anyone trying to negotiate with publishers at an institutional level, rather than leaving it to individual PIs?

11:32 hslic_reference Interesting question, karenwilli.

11:32 thecat we are not planning to track compliance

11:33 catlib56 We have a faculty deposit module front-end for our IR. One element specifically asks to identify the sponsor, and NIH is on the list. We can flag all deposit w/ the NIH sponsor to export to PMC.

11:33 hslic_reference isn't this what Harvard is doing? Institutional negotiations?

11:33 catlib56 But we'd rather not do it manually of course

11:33 lindawatson There have been some questions/comments about compliance. Many of us are leaving compliance tracking to the Sponsored Projects folks, who are sharing ideas and concerns among themselves just like we are.

11:33 thecat however, I believe our grants office will add it to their "routing slip"

11:33 sarlicat Our role is education, guidance and increasing awareness.

11:34 thecat we've gotten lots of questions about compliance - mostly from researchers who want to know what will happen if they ignore the policy

11:34 catlib56 Our Office of Sponsored Research is very good at tracking grants and PIs. E.g. they have the list of 139 current NIH grants at the univ.

11:34 hcorbett Agreed -- it is not our role to monitor/enforce compliance.

11:34 sarlicat Neturality has its benefits

11:34 jeanneaz We are attempting to negotitate with publishers at an institutional level for deposit into PMC and additional rights.

11:35 catlib56 Mostly what will happen is nothing-- until the next person goes to submit a grant proposal and NIH finds that earlier grants' articles are not in PMC

11:35 amperry I suppose that the OSR would need to ask us to track compliance - but they are in the best position to do it

11:35 karenwilli I could be wrong, but I didn't think Harvard was actually negotiating. They have an institutional policy. Someone jump in if you know more.

11:35 kimber868 catlib56 - what institution are you with?

11:35 hslic_reference yes, they are best to enforce compliance, but can't we help with the search string in PMC/PubMed?

11:35 karenwilli jeanneaz -- can you say which publishers you're working with?

11:35 catlib56 Rutgers University

11:36 HDCatNCState yes. we would not be tracking compliance, but if the IR could be useful, it would be a worthwhile area to explore

11:36 pbt56 i've heard that compliance will be self-correcting at the NIH study section level...

11:36 pbt56 when it becomes clear that a PI has or has not been entering there grant-related pubs in PMC because of a "tag" that the publication will be assigned to designate publication in public access.

11:36 MollyK karenwilli, you are correct, as far as i understand. harvard has negotiated a license with their faculty to which they are accountable before they enter into negotiations with publishers via publishing contracts

11:37 nwoelfl To expand on pbt56, the NIH open access FAQ says noncompliance will be addressed "administratively," not at the scientific review level.

11:37 lindawatson The study sections are not involved in "compliance" at all. Compliance is to be "administrative" and may delay or prevent funding, althought there are many unknowns from NIH.

11:37 waloftus Given that there's no author-name control in PubMed, and that only the affiliations of primary authors are captured, I'm not sure we're even in a position to provide much help with compliance, even if we wanted to.

11:37 thecat I'm pretty sure that's Harvard College and not Harvard Medical... Harvard has lots of different units

11:38 hcorbett Harvard's policy mandates that their authors (in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences) deposit preprints of their articles in their own IR. It is opt-out, though.

11:38 MollyK it's harvard faculty of arts and sciences.....excludes medical, law, business, etc.

11:38 jeanneaz smaller publishers at this time. Pre the NIH mandate, when it was voluntary, we were not too successful. Will see if the changed landscape affects future attempts.

11:39 pbt56 so we don't know what 'administrative' means?

11:39 MollyK i believe it means withholding of award funds

11:39 waloftus Awards will be made, but checks will not be cut.

11:40 MollyK of course, that would be worst case scenario

11:40 nwoelfl I'm not sure NIH even knows what "administrative" means at this point

11:40 catlib56 If NIH is anything like NSF, I think it means that the reviewers (mostly current or former grantees) don't look at compliance, but the NIH grants staff does that

11:40 MollyK hopefully there will be several steps between realization of non-compliance and withholding of funds

11:41 catlib56 If there has been past "non-compliance," I can imagine that NIH will allow the institution to correct it-- get the journal articles in PMC

11:41 waloftus I had heard that Michigan had some plans to make use of the bulk submission pathway set up for publishers. Anyone know anything about that?

11:41 MollyK that assuming, of course, that the authors retained the necessary rights to archive

11:41 pbt56 if the consequences are clear, logical and consistant, authors will be compliant,

11:42 MollyK that's the key sticking point in my mind: if our authors doesn't retain the necessary rights, there might not be much they/we can do to become retroactively compliant

11:42 catlib56 Would like to hear about the Michigan plans. We've also looked at the publishers pathway

11:43 catlib56 The NIH publishers' pathway is much better than the straight-into-PMC one because the former doesn't require u to XML-ize the files

11:44 rislenore MI here... re bulk submissions I know that there have been discussions and we are gathering some mss to use for a test case. Unfortunately I'm on the gathering end not the discussion end so I don't know too much abt the details. =)

11:44 nwoelfl What are the differences between the publisher pathway and straight into PMC processes?

11:45 waloftus  

http://www.nihms.nih.gov/publishers.html#q3

11:45 roneef This would potentially skip the IR to PMC option

11:45 catlib56 A publisher who send articles from their journals into PMC must send only XML files. NIH publisher pathway allows u to send "original" or "native" files such as Word or PDF

11:46 catlib56 Also, the NIH pathway includes some form of author/PI agreement

11:46 nwoelfl Why can't individual investigators send word or PDF? It would be much easier for them

11:46 catlib56 They can! But we want them also in our IR.

11:47 waloftus Correct. Publisher pathway requires only original files, plus a little metadata in xml.

11:47 devakosr my understanding is that can send word or pdf but figures and illustrations must be sent as tiff or jpeg

11:49 karenwilli We are approaching the end of our time. David, can you tell us about the archiving of this chat?

11:49 catlib56 Hmm. I think they can also be Word or Excel

11:49 lindawatson Lots of interesting conversation here. What are your ideas for how to share best practices?

11:49 dwfree We can keep going if people want to stay

11:49 catlib56 I'd be interested in coordinating w/ others who want to get an IR pathway. Rhonda Marker Rutgers

11:49 tschaka1 Where will this be archived again?

11:49 dwfree But the chat will be archived here in the near future:

http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlproftools/OnPoint/…

11:49 roneef Thanks Rhonda.

11:50 kathryndeiss It

11:50 kathryndeiss Sorry

11:50 lorregis Could we use a blog or wiki to share best practices?

11:50 jonstahler It will be archived off of the onpoint page David just posted.

11:50 kathryndeiss David put up direction

11:50 dwfree Not sure how soon as this is the first time and all. But soon.

11:50 dwfree But seriously, keep talking

11:50 lukethelibrarian wiki sounds good to me

11:50 jonstahler I will gather the archive either later today once everyone has exited the session or tomorrow.

11:50 danream how about the libsuccess wiki for best practices

11:51 tschaka1 Thanks for all of the good discussion and great ideas.

11:51 amperry danream, that's a good idea

11:51 usc1marie There's an existing wiki on the topic at

http://publishingbiomedresearch.wetpaint.com/.

Maybe we can continue conversation there?

11:51 devakosr I'd be happy to explore ir/pmc pathways -----------------------

11:51 lorregis Yes, I think an existing wiki would be good idea

11:51 danream lib success is at

http://www.libsuccess.org

11:52 karenwilli Those who don't have to go can continue conversing here today . . .

11:52 roneef someone mentioned a common delicious tag...

11:52 karenwilli just wanted to make sure we got the archive info to folks who need to leave.

11:52 amperry usc1marie, even better!

11:53 karenwilli Nice idea to talk about future communication, tho.

11:53 kathryndeiss We could always set up another OnPoint for follow-up

11:53 hcorbett I am using "NIH" as my tag for delicious. My username there is sc.at.neu

11:54 dwfree We'll post on ACRL Insider when archive is up: http://www.acrl.ala.org/acrlinsider/

11:54 roneef I think this is a good idea.

11:54 HDCatNCState yes, a follow up after the implementation would be great.

11:54 lorregis We could also continue discussion in comments to that post

11:54 kathryndeiss OK, we will plan on that and get the info out to you all once we have a date

11:55 kathryndeiss excellent idea to continue in the comments on the post!

11:55 lorregis It looks like we may need some time to look into where to post best practices. We have a couple interesting wikis to view!

11:55 amperry what about "Lib_NIH" for a delicious tag for libraries' nih pages?

11:56 lorregis sounds good, amperry

11:56 amperry I really liked Luke's suggestion

11:56 catlib56 I like the Lib_NIH tag

11:57 deltoror Doesn't the NIH already have a page listing library's NIH policy pages? send you URL there to be added

11:57 hcorbett Off to the reference desk now -- thanks for the chat!

11:57 catlib56 We'll talk more about IRs to PMC on the wiki(s) too

11:57 lindawatson I need to sign out now. Thanks to all for participating in this virtual community. And good luck to everyone on April 7th!

11:57 lorregis That also sounds very good, deltoror

11:57 dwfree Thanks for doing this Linda!

11:57 cnelson_utpa Thank you for the chat it was very interesting

11:57 dwfree But people are free to stay in the room and continue talking

11:57 catlib56 Actually, ACRL has the page of libraries' NIH pages

11:58 dwfree We're super glad you folks came and got something out of the chat!

11:58 deltoror Ok thanks; I knew I'd seen it omewhere

11:59 lorregis Thanks everyone - this has been very useful. I look forward to seeing more on the ACRL Insider and maybe another chat

12:00 karenwilli Kara, can you give us the URL for the ACRL page with the NIH links?

12:00 lukethelibrarian thanks, everybody - i'll look out for "nih" and "lib_nih" tags

12:01 dwfree I think Kara is in and out of the room. We'll post that link to the Insider as well

12:01 catlib56 I misspoke, it is ARL the link is

http://www.arl.org/sc/implement/nih/guide/nih-reso…

12:01 kara_malenfant I think people mean ARL? ARL Guide to NIH Policy

http://www.arl.org/sc/implement/nih/guide/index.sh…

which links under “resources” to many university websites

12:03 catlib56 Thank you for the great chat. Good to find others who are in the same boat!

12:03 amperry thanks everyone!

12:03 karenwilli Thanks for chatting everyone. I need to head out for my next meeting but have learned much this hour.

12:04 kara_malenfant Have an idea for a future chat topic? (Beyond NIH) let any ACRL staff member know.

12:04 kara_malenfant We're looking for new topics for chats this fall.

12:04 kara_malenfant And conveners too!:)