Do Nature's Publishers Even Read Their Own Articles About Open Access?

from the funny-that dept

Thu, Apr 17th 2014 3:38am — Mike Masnick

Just a few weeks ago we wrote about scientific publishing giant Nature's somewhat abhorrent open access policy, where it's telling researchers at universities that require open access publishing that they need to get a waiver from that policy. So it seems rather strange to see that very same Nature, just days later, publishing an article about open access, in which it talks about how two of the largest funders of scientific research today, Wellcome Trust in the UK and the National Institute for Health (NIH) in the US, are starting to punish grant recipients who don't follow through on open access obligations. Both of those organizations require certain open access standards, but apparently have mostly just trusted researchers to follow through. Not any more:

Now they are done with just dangling carrots. Both institutions are bringing out the sticks: cautiously and discreetly cracking down on researchers who do not make their papers publicly available.

Neither agency would name those who have been sanctioned. But the London-based Wellcome Trust says that it has withheld grant payments on 63 occasions in the past year because papers resulting from the funding were not open access. And the NIH, in Bethesda, Maryland, says that it has delayed some continuing grant awards since July 2013 because of non-compliance with open-access policies, although the agency does not know the exact numbers.

The report notes that this has resulted in a "noticeable jump in researchers following the rules." That makes sense.

Of course, nowhere in the Nature article does reporter Richard Van Noorden ever bother to mention that his own publication is fighting against those requirements. In fact, the article reads as if it's a strong supporter of open access rules:

Some scientists are not even aware that they could be penalized. Nature's news team contacted Sheila MacNeil, a tissue engineer at the University of Sheffield, UK, who has published hundreds of articles, including a March 2013 paper on making stem-cell lattices for corneal repair that was funded by the Wellcome Trust (I. Ortega et al. Acta Biomater. 9, 5511–5520; 2013). Nature pointed out that the article should be open access but is not. "This is new to me," responds MacNeil, who plans to make the paper available. "Agreeing with open access is easy — making it happen, less so," she says.

Perhaps the Nature "news team" should take a look at how their own publisher is forcing researchers to ignore their open access obligations.

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: nih, open access, publishing
Companies: nature, wellcome trust

19 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2014 @ 4:08am

Nature is full of paradoxes - why would you be surprised at the journal containing some of them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dustin, 17 Apr 2014 @ 4:53am

This doesn't surprise me, though I'm glad to see that some universities are starting to actually enforce open access rules. I spent ten years in these corporate world before returning to college to continue my education. Before I returned I picked up and extremely technical hobby and constantly ran up against institutional firewalls when trying to access even the most basic journal articles on techniques and research. Since returning to college? Not so much, because my university pays for the fees.

As a result I find myself hoarding articles that are even of remote interest to my hobby, because I know that as soon as I'm no longer a student I won't be able to afford to access them.

They say that the era of the independent scientist changing the world is over. What they don't say is that is, in large part, because they've been priced out of the conversation unless they have the backing of large business's or universities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2014 @ 7:30am
  
  Re:
  Unfortunately, even the backing of large universities doesn't mean as much anymore. Even wealthy Harvard has had to cut their academic journal subscriptions because their library budget couldn't support the rising subscription costs.
  
  A few years ago the American Chemical Society raised their prices 200% and promised yearly 15% after that. My university with only 2000 students (and 9 chem majors) was already paying almost $6000/year before the hike. Several other journals have raised their prices by 30-35% this year. Increases like that are depressingly common.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 17 Apr 2014 @ 7:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    A few years ago the American Chemical Society raised their prices 200% and promised yearly 15% after that... Several other journals have raised their prices by 30-35% this year. Increases like that are depressingly common.
    
    That sounds like a death spiral.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2014 @ 5:03am

Sounds like they may be preparing for a shift.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2014 @ 5:17am

Nature is a whore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 17 Apr 2014 @ 7:43am

Maybe there's some sort of disconnect between the editorial team and the owners, and this is someone resorting to a combination of reverse psychology and passive-aggressive bitching after all other means of persuasion have failed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard Van Noorden, 17 Apr 2014 @ 8:17am

Hi � I reported this story for Nature�s news team. to be clear, the news team � the journalists � write our stories independently of the policies of the journal and of its publisher, Nature Publishing Group. It may not be immediately obvious, but the publication Nature operates both as a �journal� � which publishes manuscripts � and as a �magazine� � which has a separate team of reporters writing news and comment.

I�m commenting here because you wrote: �nowhere in the Nature article does reporter Richard Van Noorden ever bother to mention that his own publication is fighting against those requirements�. Well, I didn�t mention it because it�s not true: the journal is not fighting against those requirements. If you publish a paper in Nature, it is easy to comply with the open access obligations set down by Wellcome Trust and NIH.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 17 Apr 2014 @ 8:33am
  
  Re:
  Well, I didn�t mention it because it�s not true: the journal is not fighting against those requirements.
  
  Then why did NGP start suddenly requiring waivers from Duke authors and others?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 17 Apr 2014 @ 8:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oops. Meant "NPG"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard Van Noorden, 17 Apr 2014 @ 8:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    All I have seen as explanation is what NPG publicly stated. But none of that relates to the Wellcome Trust/NIH requirements (which is what my article was about). In fact, I don't believe any publishers go against the Wellcome Trust/NIH .
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 17 Apr 2014 @ 2:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Double Oops. I just realized that my link is incorrect.
    
    Should be:
    
    http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2014/03/27/attacking-academic-values/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grace Baynes, 17 Apr 2014 @ 9:38am

from NPG
As Richard says, Nature's journalists are editorially independent of NPG.

We have explained NPG's position here: http://blogs.nature.com/ofschemesandmemes/2014/03/28/clarifying-npgs-views-on-moral-rights-and-insti tutional-open-access-mandates
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 17 Apr 2014 @ 10:07am
  
  Re: from NPG
  From your link:
  If we do not request a waiver, the general language of this policy means that Duke University has the rights not only to archive the manuscript in Dukespace, but also to distribute and publish to the world at large the final version of a subscription article freely, in any medium, immediately on publication.
  
  Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't that basically saying "We support Open Access, as long as it's not TOO open."
  
  Doesn't that also interfere with the author's ability to publish their own work on their own websites after 6 months or is the waiver only for the six month period?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 17 Apr 2014 @ 10:35am
    
    Re: Re: from NPG
    Also note, the cost of journals is negotiated with every university individualy, and subject to a confidentiality clause, therefore plenty of capability to get the university to do what they want.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 17 Apr 2014 @ 1:17pm
    
    Re: Re: from NPG
    Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't that basically saying "We support Open Access, as long as it's not TOO open."
    
    I would also like to see some further clarification. What exactly is the problem with allowing Duke to distribute and publish the article? You don't want the competition?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Coyne Tibbets (profile), 17 Apr 2014 @ 9:49am

No hypocrisy at all
The news team giveth as the publisher taketh away.

So you see, it's not really hypocrisy at all; according to them, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 17 Apr 2014 @ 10:40am

Naturally
If they write articles like that, you can't get angry with them. It's simply in their Nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr. Asoka Misra, 17 Apr 2014 @ 11:13am

OA Publishing
Why worry about so many things at the same time ? Rather, leave the whole lot of difficulty at your back and just keep yourself busy with the RESEARCH that you like THE MOST by Quick & Hassle Free publishing in www.ijsmet.com at almost NO cost. At the end of the day People will come to know your work by the strength of your findings and not really if it got published in a creamy Journal or not. Fortunately their days are now numbered whether you like it or not. Bright sun shine is now in favor of Scientists / Researchers due to the Global Media in this time of Global Village. Time is life and progress, therefore, let's make the best use of the same without pondering too much into the debates of so many aspects of OA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]