Starting July 1, Academic Publishers Can't Paywall NIH-Funded Research (x.com) 59
An anonymous reader writes: NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has announced that the NIH Public Access Policy, originally slated to go into effect on December 31, 2025, will now be effective as of July 1. From Bhattacharya's announcement: NIH is the crown jewel of the American biomedical research system. However, a recent Pew Research Center study shows that only about 25% of Americans have a "great deal of confidence" that scientists are working for the public good. Earlier implementation of the Public Access Policy will help increase public confidence in the research we fund while also ensuring that the investments made by taxpayers produce replicable, reproducible, and generalizable results that benefit all Americans.
Providing speedy public access to NIH-funded results is just one of the ways we are working to earn back the trust of the American people. Trust in science is an essential element in Making America Healthy Again. As such, NIH and its research partners will continue to promote maximum transparency in all that we do.
Providing speedy public access to NIH-funded results is just one of the ways we are working to earn back the trust of the American people. Trust in science is an essential element in Making America Healthy Again. As such, NIH and its research partners will continue to promote maximum transparency in all that we do.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There you go again,
Pretty lame even for bottom feeder like you drinkypoo. misstate what was said and criticize. My point was to make the data efficiently searchable, you proposed contacting people individually about specific research, most of the people who might be looking have no way to know even exists.
I am not surprised someone like you would be doing all they can help the people torturing small animals for nonsense reasons, other than to thrust their hands into the public cookie jar and pay themselv
Keep going, kids (Score:1)
I have long since figured out that we cannot have any serious conversations on Slashdot until we drain you partisan fuckfaces of modpoints for the day, by all means, do exactly what I want you to do you fucking clown cucks.
Re: (Score:1)
If only there was a substance you could take as a child that greatly reduced the chances of contracting this disease
Guess the boarder was a talking point this morning. Do we have updates on Hillary’s emails and Hunter’s laptop?
Re:Popcorn (Score:5, Insightful)
I read that the 'anti-vaxxer' label for the TX outbreak is really a bunch of media bullshit. When you use the term 'anti-vaxxer' you tend to conjure up images of rednecks in jacked up pickup trucks yelling 'get er done!'. Whats really driving the outbreak in TX is the Mennonite community. Apparently its a religious issue. If the outbreak was heavily concentrated in a community of Hindi or Muslim (like say Dearborn, MI) I seriously doubt the media would be throwing that pejorative around. Its just like that whole gay wedding cake bullshit. The media had to shop around just to find a christian bakery that refused to make a gay wedding cake and intentionally did not mention the 9 Muslim bakeries that also refused make a gay wedding cake. I would call it media bias but honestly it seems to go beyond that. Its almost like an axe to grind.
It sucks that we are compromising herd immunity, but there really isn't much you can do about religious objections. Some religious groups refuse to accept blood due to some misinterpretations of the bible. As if it was that easy to condemn someone's soul to hell by cross-contaminating their biology with some other organic biology. The biggest problem is that its not just the unvaccinated that are at risk. There are those that are unable to acquire immunity through vaccinations. Despite getting vaccinated multiple times, their titers come back that they are not immune. Those people rely entirely on herd immunity.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
some religious groups, not even the religion as a whole. Its not just vaccines either. What do you call Amish that have a telephone in their Barn but not in their house? We dont really call them Technoidiots or Anti-techies. We just call them Amish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I read that the 'anti-vaxxer' label for the TX outbreak is really a bunch of media bullshit. When you use the term 'anti-vaxxer' you tend to conjure up images of rednecks in jacked up pickup trucks yelling 'get er done!'. Whats really driving the outbreak in TX is the Mennonite community.
So what you're saying is, the outbreak is being driven by religious anti-vaxxers? How does that show that they are not anti-vaxxers?
Apparently its a religious issue. If the outbreak was heavily concentrated in a community of Hindi or Muslim (like say Dearborn, MI) I seriously doubt the media would be throwing that pejorative around.
In fact that's exactly the same pejorative they would be using, because they wouldn't want to make mention of their religion because they would be accused of religiofascist dipsticks of being anti-religion.
It sucks that we are compromising herd immunity, but there really isn't much you can do about religious objections.
No, you can only really reasonably do what we normally do: educate people willing to be educated, and mock people's idiotic beliefs based on centuries-old information. But th
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is, the outbreak is being driven by religious anti-vaxxers? How does that show that they are not anti-vaxxers?
Your side redefined anti-vaxxer term to specifically mean people that oppose compulsory mRNA-based COVID vaccines. For example, according to that definition I am an anti-vaxxer (that happen to be up to date on all vaccinations).
Re: Popcorn (Score:2)
"Your side redefined anti-vaxxer term to specifically mean people that oppose compulsory mRNA-based COVID vaccines"
My side? You mean the facts? The fact is that the people who objected to the COVID vaccines are only one kind of anti-vaxxer, but they are in no way whatsoever different from the other kind. In both cases their arguments are ignorant.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you've got reasonable evidence, the word for that is paranoid.
If you do have reasonable evidence, I've never countered it.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump helped create it. You should be all for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Just one problem: You keep using the word "vaccine" to refer to experimental gene therapy.
Genes are DNA. RNA is not DNA. No vaccines are "gene therapy".
Re: (Score:1)
Hey, Ivan.
I know English isn't your birth language but if you're going to troll a US website, at least learn the difference between 'border' and 'boarder'.
Re: (Score:2)
The paywalls are big part of what helps keep that stuff under wraps. Once this stuff is easy to search and crawl for free, I expect a lot anger out their to be triggered.
I find this hard to believe. The abstracts are free and for the most part all anyone who cares has to do is prepend the URL with sci-hub.se/ to get access to the whole thing for free or if they really care buy access to the article.
Can't wait to see what happens when the public gets to see the BS their tax dollars are spent on, the inhumane white coat waste, and so on the NIH is directly behind.
Nothing would be my first guess although personally it is nice to see these types of strings. I hope they are applied more consistently throughout the government so things taxpayers pay for don't keep getting entangled in proprietary commercial systems.
Thus far I've found mysel
Re: (Score:3)
The abstracts are free and for the most part all anyone who cares has to do is prepend the URL with sci-hub.se/ to get access to the whole thing for free or if they really care buy access to the article.
Plus, anyone in the world enrolled in college/university, anyone working there, possibly anyone visiting and being able to use a guest wifi access. If the NIH was doing bad/stupid research, journalists and academics worldwide would have come to that conclusion and the news would have spread.
Re: (Score:2)
Or anybody who goes to a library.
The theory that there's a massive conspiracy hidden in the scientific literature is entertaining though. Maybe someone will make a TV show, like the cop and hospital shows. In reality it's mostly just boring.
Re:Popcorn (Score:5, Informative)
Can't wait to see what happens when the public gets to see the BS their tax dollars are spent on
You should look up "basic science", which I presume is not the acronym you were after with "BS". There is a lot of important basic science research that is funded by the NIH that gets spun - intentionally or otherwise - into things that it isn't. There is a lot that we don't know about fundamental molecular biology that we are funding research on that will pay dividends later but might seem obtuse right now.
Another great example is transgenomic - not transgendered - animal models. Whether the Trump Administration made that misstatement intentionally or just ignorantly is open to discussion, but the value of the work is not. We learn a lot by doing genomic work in mice; work that leads to better understanding and treatment for human diseases.
The paywalls are big part of what helps keep that stuff under wraps.
You couldn't be more wrong on that if you tried. If scientists had work they didn't want people to know about why would they publish it at all? To get a publication in anywhere it has to go through peer review, which means more people read it and know about it. If you had awful results that you didn't want to tell anyone about then wouldn't you just not even submit it to a journal at all?
Re: (Score:1)
Another great example is transgenomic - not transgendered - animal models. Whether the Trump Administration made that misstatement intentionally or just ignorantly is open to discussion, but the value of the work is not. We learn a lot by doing genomic work in mice; work that leads to better understanding and treatment for human diseases.
From what I understand many including in the press presumed Trump et el must have conflated transgenic with transgender. The Whitehouse responded by published the following. At least they put specific claims on the table.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/art... [whitehouse.gov]
The administration routinely cherry picks what amounts to thermal noise in overall funding in order to provide political cover to justify ultra vires + wholesale destruction of US institutions. This is merely hucksterism for the sake of selfish aggregatio
Re: (Score:2)
You are more charitable in your beliefs than I am. I strongly suspect "enemy action".
Re: (Score:2)
Another great example is transgenomic - not transgendered - animal models.
Transgenic not transgenomic.
Whether the Trump Administration made that misstatement intentionally or just ignorantly is open to discussion, but the value of the work is not. We learn a lot by doing genomic work in mice; work that leads to better understanding and treatment for human diseases.
This is baseless speculation. People merely presumed they had conflated transgenic with transgender. The Whitehouse later responded with the following:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/art... [whitehouse.gov]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it might get support for the suppression of Sci-Hub. That's the only down-side I can think of.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the BS because it contradicts Reich wing view points, or involves something more then looking at what can make money in the next quarter?
You Reich wingers really are just that clueless? You really don't understand how RESEARCH works. Explains why applied areas are all Reich wing dominated, they want a black and white, yes and no answer RIGHT NOW, without any idea how shit can work. You guys would've defunded Einstein, Fermi and the like because all that "relativity" and "quantum mechanics" was BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, guys pretty much like them did act to suppress Einstein, Fermi and the like. That's why they ended up in the US.
Paywalls were not their choices to start with (Score:5, Interesting)
You'll be hard pressed to find a researcher who favors paywalls. The problem is many of the most prestigious journals use them. This leads to a chicken-and-egg problem for researchers, as they either get their best work in the paywalled journals - where it gets read by more people - or they put it into less prestigious journals that are not paywalled. For years there was no choice; it was paywalled or less read.
The new regulation says that the previously paywalled journals have to make an open access option available for NIH funded research. This is a great thing. The publishers will still get publication fees, but they can't force readers to pay additional fees. Whether journals should be so expensive to publish in - and subscribe to - is another question, but at least readers will have access to more published work at no direct cost.
But make no mistake about it. The paywalls existed to generate revenue for the journals, the scientists themselves never favored them. As someone who spent quite a bit of time at a smaller research university (with fewer journal subscriptions available through our library) I know the frustration of not being able to get some journal articles due to paywalls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'll be hard pressed to find a researcher who favors paywalls. As someone who spent quite a bit of time at a smaller research university (with fewer journal subscriptions available through our library) I know the frustration of not being able to get some journal articles due to paywalls.
This man is 100% correct and true.
I spent decades doing research at MIT (DARPA funded) and Harvard Medical School (NIH funded). I had access to any journal I desired. Everybody I know hates/ed journal paywalls, even if it didn't affect us personally.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, they solved that problem. The average journal paper is only downloaded a handful of times and the vast majority of those are through package deals with libraries, so the paywalls must make almost no money. A way better business plan is to charge a few thousand dollars for the submission! Get your money up front, guaranteed.
No need to choose between prestigious and predatory now, you can pay Nature itself $10k pounds to publish your article.
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect as much. Can anyone even make a good case for the existence of "Journals" -- as companies that get to sell access to research they didn't fund? I don't believe any scientists are getting rich off royalties from them, right?
They seem to me to be like a worse version of the record label racket. It seems like peer review itself should provide enough signal (drawing on the reputations of who decided to review it) to distinguish a Serious Paper that Really Matters from some slop fabricated by a co
Golden Fleece Award mod 2 (Score:3)
Some of this was funny, but so easy to take out of context.
I have no issues with research being publicly available, however, will everyone know how to process the sometimes hard to digest work? A lot of it can be seriously obscure, even for those of us who do research for a living.
Imagine "the public" making informed and accurate assessments on " The effects of amalayze 32 inhibitions while promoting dihedral versions of oxyribonase accumulation in sperm differentiualization for optimal leukocyte production in type O reactions." (completely made up stuff here)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no issues with research being publicly available, however, will everyone know how to process the sometimes hard to digest work? A lot of it can be seriously obscure, even for those of us who do research for a living
Ahh, so the obvious solution is to charge for access, because ignorant people are poor. That'll keep them from trying to read things they can't possibly comprehend!
You do realize you just proved my point. You can't even read when a person posts they have no problem with research being publicly available, then using your last brain cell, claim I'm saying it should be behind a paywall. You are lacking severely in comprehension.
Consider upping your Rexulti medication.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine "the public" making informed and accurate assessments on " The effects of amalayze 32 inhibitions while promoting dihedral versions of oxyribonase accumulation in sperm differentiualization for optimal leukocyte production in type O reactions." (completely made up stuff here)
You should get a job as an LLM.
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a human!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The public should always have access to what their tax dollars have been spent on. Researchers aren't owed funding for the
It's a really good idea (Score:4, Insightful)
If taxpayers already paid for the research, they shouldn't have to pay twice. Making the research publicly available is an excellent idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has one clever trick to enforce this policy (Score:1, Flamebait)
Trump has one clever trick to enforce this policy...
In slashdot tradition:
Re:Trump has one clever trick to enforce this poli (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like you're somehow unable to access the current CR or the Trump Administration's proposed budget so you're channeling The View's paranormal mind-reading ability instead.
Is this accurate?
Wouldn't data be superior to ESP in this case?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The term you should be looking for is "hyperbole".
When taken as hyperbole, it is clearly true. It's not clear how extreme the exaggeration is.
Too bad they cancelled NIH research (Score:2)
This is kind of pointless now since Trump/Musk cancelled most NIH research.
The US won't be producing any research. All of the good researchers are fleeing to Europe and Canada.
The rest are working at McDonalds.
TB Patients Jubilant (Score:1)