Joyce E. B. Backus Associate Director for Library Operations National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health U.S. Department of Health and Human Services October 2015

Some of the members: Some of the members: Charge: Charge: Reviewing NLM’s mission, organization, and programmatic priorities Reviewing NLM’s mission, organization, and programmatic priorities Articulating a strategic vision to ensure that NLM remains an international leader in biomedical and health information. Articulating a strategic vision to ensure that NLM remains an international leader in biomedical and health information. Chris Shaffer, MS OHSU James Williams, II, MS U. Colorado, Boulder Alexa McCray, PhD Harvard Trudy MacKay, PhD NC State Former Chair, NLM Board

RFI issued Feb 13–March 13, 2015 Input requested on 5 questions 649 respondents

HMD resources are marvelous DOCLINE has been absolutely essential The health services research literature is invaluable Most valuable: The National Network of Libraries of Medicine Keep up the good work HMD is indispensable Without a doubt, NCBI is the most valuable element of the NLM PubMed is an invaluable platform The WISER program is the most valuable I use the REMM site extensively Leadership in funding biomedical informatics research and innovation Informatics training programs should be expanded We can’t overstate the importance of the NLM resources I find ClinicalTrials.gov to be useful in many waysPubMed Central is great Databases such as MedlinePlus are extremely important for librarians and patrons Toxnet most valuable PubMed, including the MeSH system, is invaluable The extensive NLM collection fills a hugely important role ITK is invaluable

Current NLM elements that are of the most, or least, value to the research community health professionals patients and the public libraries, publishers, organizations, companies, and individuals who use NLM data, software tools, and systems in developing and providing value-added or complementary services and products… and future capabilities that would be needed…

How NLM could be better positioned to help address the broader and growing challenges associated with: Biomedical informatics, “big data,” and data science; Electronic health records; Digital publications; or Other emerging challenges/ elements warranting special consideration.

Librarian 38.7% Researcher 11.1% Emergency Personnel 9.4% Educator 7.4% Historian 7.6% Healthcare Professional 5.1% Environmental Science / Toxicology 5.2% Other 4.8% Unknown 3.7% Public Health 2.8% Advocate 2.9% Publisher 1.4% N=649 respondents

University 24.3% Medical School 12.0% Hospital 11.9% Company 10.9% State / Local Government 9.2% Association 7.6% Federal Government (non NIH, non Military) 5.4% K % Unknown 3.9% Public Library 2.6% Military 2.0% NIH 1.8% International 1.7% RML 1.5% Community College 0.3% N=649 respondents

Medical Library Association Association of Academic Health Science Libraries Association of American Medical Colleges American College of Medical Informatics Association of Research Libraries American Association for the History of Medicine

Value to Research Community PubMed HMD PMC NCBI ClinicalTrials MeSH DOCLINE NN/LM UMLS TOXNET Value to Health Professionals PubMed WISER TOXNET PMC MedlinePlus ClinicalTrials NN/LM DOCLINE Open Access REMM Value to Patients & Public MedlinePlus PubMed ClinicalTrials NN/LM HMD PMC DB Training K-12 Household Products PM Health Value to Librarians, Publishers, Developers PubMed NN/LM DOCLINE PMC MeSH MedlinePlus DB Training ClinicalTrials HMD Associates Top 10 mentions

Bibliographic Drug Information ClinicalTrials.gov Data Science/Sharing Standards/Vocabulary EHR / LHC Informatics Research Informatics Training Collections–Print, Digital Resource/Lib Training History of Medicine Consumer Health Env/Tox/Disaster Health Services Research APIs, E-utils, LinkOut NLM Overall

Biomedical Informatics Big Data Clinical Genomics Clinical Data Analysis EHR Digital Publications Open Access Emergency Response

“NLM has the opportunity to play a critical role during an unprecedented era in biomedical research… “ Harlan M. Krumholtz, MD, Co-chair

NLM Working Group - January, 2015 Met via 4 conference calls and 2 in-person meetings Reviewed mission, organization, and programs Met with NIH and NLM leadership Evaluated NLM’s strengths and weaknesses Identified emerging opportunities and challenges Public report on June 11, 2015 – video at “The remarkable work of NLM has generated international goodwill and reflected positively on the NIH and the United States. In fact, for many, NLM is the most visible face of NIH.”

To leverage these historic changes, the Working Group, with respect for the outstanding history of NLM and its potential for the future, formulated a series of recommendations to guide the future of NLM: Recommendation #1 - NLM must continually evolve to remain a leader in assimilating and disseminating accessible and authoritative biomedical research findings and trusted health information to the public, healthcare professionals, and researchers worldwide. Recommendation #2 - NLM should lead efforts to support and catalyze open science, data sharing, and research reproducibility, striving to promote the concept that biomedical information and its transparent analysis are public goods. Recommendation #3 - NLM should be the intellectual and programmatic epicenter for data science at NIH and stimulate its advancement throughout biomedical research and application.

Recommendation #4 - NLM should strengthen its role in fostering the future generation of professionals in biomedical informatics, data science, library sciences, and related disciplines through sustained and focused training efforts. Recommendation #5 - NLM should maintain, preserve, and make accessible the nation’s historical efforts in advancing biomedical research and medicine, thereby ensuring that this legacy is both safe and accessible for long-‐term use. Recommendation #6 - New NLM leadership should evaluate what talent, resources, and organizational structures are required to ensure NLM can fully achieve its mission and best allocate its resources.

“Applications will be reviewed starting October 20, 2015 and will be accepted until the position is filled.”

58% decline since 2002

What we learned Increasing availability of free full-text & changing patron behavior is decreasing ILL overall E-journals pose challenges for ILL (embargos, negotiation) 41% of health science libraries are staffed by 1 person DOCLINE changes Check embargo periods during request routing (Done) Specify days of the week library provides ILL (Coming …) Eliminate daily login requirement (Coming …)

BALASUBRAMANIAM, Sanjeeve, M.D., Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD CHEUNG, Dorothy, M.D., Allergy- Immunology Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee CONTE, Marisa, Taubman Health Sciences Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor CORSI, Karen F., Sc.D., University of Colorado, Denver DELCLOS, George L., M.D., Ph.D., University of Texas-Houston GODOY-VITORINO, Filipa, Ph.D., College of Sciences and Technology, Inter American University of Puerto Rico, San Juan JOE, Jennie R., Ph.D., M.P.H., M.A., University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson KALET, Adina, M.D., New York University School of Medicine NGUYEN, Thu, Annelise, Ph.D., M.B.A., Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS NWOMEH, Benedict C., M.D., Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbia, OH PASCOE, John R., BVSc, Ph.D., University of California, Davis RAO, Jaya, M.D., American College of Physicians, Philadelphia, PA TANNERY, Nancy, H., M.L.S., University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA YOSHIMURA, Masami, D.Sc., Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge

LSTRC Meeting Date Titles Reviewed Titles Recommended February (11%) October (8%) June (11%) February (14%) October (11%) June (12%) February (12%) October (14%) February (16%) MEDLINE Journal Titles February February

26 Feb Titles Reviewed 20 Titles Recommended Title StatusReviewRecommend Print only 110 Print and Electronic E-only 53 3 Open Access Re-reviews 37 8 English Non-English 120

Total Citations # Linked to Full text % Linked to Full Text # Linked to Free Full Text % Linked to Free Full Text All PubMed 24,868,21115,046,31661%4,895,19020% present 15,932,28312,526,48479%3,904,98225% present 11,522,97610,192,47988%3,250,94228% present 5,126,1544,793,28894%1,708,48333%

22 million MEDLINE Citations 24.8 million PubMed Citations 22.1 million PubMed Citations 20 million MEDLINE Citations 17.7 million PubMed Citations 15 million MEDLINE Citations 10 million 10.3 million

Pilot began - October 22, 2013 Comments visible to the public - December 19, 2013 Sustainable infrastructure that minimizes potentially harmful use of the forum Quality of the comments is high – use of the Commons is low Oct 2013 Oct 2013 Dec 2013 Dec 2013 Members Ratings Comments Spring 2015 Approaching 9,000 members ~3,000 comments

New for 2015 – Journal Club membership of PubMed Commons, with 2 PubMed Commons member guarantors Journal clubs bring in-depth group discussions of articles to PubMed users Clubs get their own profile page on PubMed 17 journal clubs in the Commons Consider leading one

NCBI - Spring 2015

Follow us – , Twitter, Facebook, etc Send us your comments