Obama Administration Considers More Public Access To Publicly Funded Research
from the this-is-a-good-thing,-people dept
It's hard to comprehend who could be against the idea that federally-funded research (i.e., research funded by your tax dollars) shouldn't become available to the very public who paid for it. But many publishers pushed back hard when the National Institute of Health (NIH) began enforcing a rule that required the research it funded to be published openly a year after it was published in a journal. Again, this was really incredible. Journals get all of their content for free. They do not pay the authors. The journals often claim the copyright over those works as well -- despite the lack of payment. The journals also do not pay the peer reviewers either. The biggest expenses of most publications... not even present in such academic journals. And yet they still charge huge fees for the publication itself. It's a great scam, and they don't want it to end. But even the NIH rules still give them a year's monopoly. Yet, they hated it so much that they even got Rep. John Conyers to try to pass a law ending the requirement -- which thankfully went nowhere after lots of people protested.The good news is that it looks like the Obama administration is looking to go in the other direction. The EFF points us to the news that the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is looking at ways to have this requirement go beyond just NIH and require public access for all federally funded research, including from organizations like the National Science Foundation (NSF). OSTP is asking for comments and input on the idea -- and it's an idea that makes a ton of sense. It seems likely that journal publishers will protest, but hopefully common sense will prevail and federally funded research will become open, accessible and available to everyone.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: federal funding, open access, public access, publicly funded research
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typical Complaints
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, But
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservatives will see this as promoting free market. I agree that if you accept government handouts then you are subject to do what they ask you too, just like if you accept private grants you have to meet certain expectations. If you don't like that fact you have to change your business plan or look for money from somewhere else. Want your research to be secret? find a free market solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, that's why Bush did so much to fix this problem (and I shouldn't have to state this, but I'm OBVIOUSLY being sarcastic).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clarifying
- If you publish an article in a scientific journal the publisher tend to ask the authors to cough up a payment of around 1500 EUR ~ 2000 USD
- The ones who want might want to read the article need to pay a subscription fee to the publisher.
- The peer reviewers are in general not paid
- The advertisement income on journal articles is not shared with the authors nor the readers.
- The authors can no longer put their own work in the public sphere due to copyright transfer.
Great scam !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clarifying
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh sure, it might work for a couple of very lucky individuals who get grants and fame and fortune, but for the average scientist, they cannot do that work without someone paying for the articles they write... Or something...
How do I sound as a copyright maximalist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How is the Publication of Publicly Funded Research Piracy?
If publishing rates decline, well that is the free-market at work. Too bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How is the Publication of Publicly Funded Research Piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bayh–Dole Act
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is awesome if obama does this
Anyways, I am an engineer and it always pains me when I am doing research on a project and come up with a journal that could help me. It costs like 50-100 bucks. and it is really hard to get money for a paper just to read. I can't wait to finally be able to read actual content and not bombarded by ads.
If the government set up a public forum (ie library) for this type of information and make it redily accessable that would be a huge help to all that are pushing the envolope.
An to address the issue of a scientist to write these papers and get paid for it. You have to realize obama can only make the ones that take a government grant push their work into the public domain. Scientist or engineers that recieve private funding have every right to publish as they see fit. Whether it be for profit or not. Most likely if it is private research it will be accompanied by a patent and owned by a corperation/school anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about defence and nuclear research?
What is not so clear to me, though, is what should be done with defense research? Though much (most?) is federally funded, I certainly don't want that publicly available, which means available for enemies.
Also, what about federally funded nuclear research?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about defence and nuclear research?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, I understand the Journals' reasoning; all of them are struggling to stay afloat financially (my personal experience is with ASME and IEEE journals), but like so many things in this Internet Age it is simply an old business model struggling to stay afloat. The most obvious solution in my view is that either research funding agencies or the government more directly ought to subsidize the maintenance of digital publication of reviewed papers as part of their general support for research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If any of you believe that....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, I may be possible to set up a secure online library that everyone can access the classified marterial, once clearance has been verified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this-is-a-good-thing - or is it really?
1. The publishers do NOT own the work, only the exact article. Scientists commonly their work in several publications and are absolutely FREE to share their work with anyone they wish. The publisher has only the copyright on the article itself.
2. The scientists are not complaining about this, so what is the beef? It is not SECRETE SCIENCE! Anyone in the public (do you not realize the scientists are members of the public?) all you need to is subsribe to the publication and you can read it first release.
3. Moreover, anything of real value is almost instantly picked up by the general media as they HAVE subcribed to the publications. So anything really earch shattering gets out a long time before this artificial year you are talking about.
4. The peer review process is one of the widely accepted methods for scientists the strongly challenge each others work, which is why highly rated scientists gladly review publications for free. ITS ABOUT THE SCIENCE!
While it is not a perfect system, what is portrayed in this article about scientific publications is more about what its readers want to hear than about what is really going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: this-is-a-good-thing - or is it really?
If you work for a publicly funded university they often try to claim rights on the work of scientists.
Also, journals often do claim copyright over the work. If the article itself is what the scientist put then the article is the "work" of the scientist, at least as it was printed in the publication.
"2. The scientists are not complaining about this, so what is the beef? It is not SECRETE SCIENCE! Anyone in the public (do you not realize the scientists are members of the public?) all you need to is subsribe to the publication and you can read it first release."
The scientists ARE complaining, it's just that YOU'RE not because the laws unfairly benefit YOU. Also, in regard to all you need to do is subscribe to the publication, THAT'S THE POINT, SUBSCRIPTION COSTS MONEY.
"3. Moreover, anything of real value is almost instantly picked up by the general media as they HAVE subcribed to the publications. So anything really earch shattering gets out a long time before this artificial year you are talking about."
The mainstream media is a joke in terms of what they deliver. They don't deliver any details.
"4. The peer review process is one of the widely accepted methods for scientists the strongly challenge each others work, which is why highly rated scientists gladly review publications for free. ITS ABOUT THE SCIENCE!"
and that's the point, publishers unfairly and unethically benefit from the works of of others.
"While it is not a perfect system, what is portrayed in this article about scientific publications is more about what its readers want to hear than about what is really going on."
It's interesting that you post this well after you think critics would read and criticize your work. I've noticed that becoming more of a trend lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]