NIH-Funded Science Must Now Be Free To Read Instantly

Starting today, researchers funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) will be required to make their scientific papers available to read for free as soon as they are published in a peer-reviewed journal. That's according to the agency's latest public-access policy, aimed at making federally funded research accessible to taxpayers. From a report: Established under former US president Joe Biden, the policy was originally set to take effect on 31 December for all US agencies, but the administration of Biden's successor, Donald Trump, has accelerated its implementation for the NIH, a move that has surprised some scholars. That's because, although the Trump team has declared itself a defender of taxpayer dollars, it has also targeted programmes and research projects focused on equity and inclusion for elimination. And one of the policy's main goals is to ensure equitable access to federally funded research.

The move means that universities will have less time to advise their researchers on how to comply with the policy, says Peter Suber, director of the Harvard Open Access Project in Cambridge, Massachusetts. There is usually "some confusion or even some non-compliance after a new policy takes effect, but I think universities will eventually get on top of that," he says.

Degree Programs in Advanced Commie-Quashing

[Pseudonymous Powers]

Shh! You're going to tip off the current administration!

NIH?

[Errol backfiring]

In most countries, NIH is the English abbreviation for "Not Invented Here [wikipedia.org]"

Re:

[rickb928]

And your point is?

Re:

[groobly]

He is decrying nihilism.

Re:

[arglebargle_xiv]

But not in the US, because it wasn't invented there.

Is Anyone Deluded About This?

[AlanObject]

If the Trump people are advancing a Biden initiated policy you can be 100+% certain that is not because they think the policy was beneficial to anyone. There is no "surprise."

Their motivation is to extract revenge for something and to purge anyone they don't like. And make an example out of them. And make sure that only loyalists remain. It has nothing to do with "equity" or making best use of taxpayer dollars.

NIH "offended" Trump in the past so that is the agenda.

Think NIH is the only target?

Re:Is Anyone Deluded About This?

[Gilgaron]

This hurts the publishers more than the scientists. Scientists have been various levels of dissatisfied with publishing for a long time, and generally happy to have their research as publicly available as possible. Without an exclusivity period I'm not sure what impact it'll have on independent publishing, so if there's a silver cloud for the snake tallow grifters it might be that it'll starve the publishers some while ensuring legit Science/Cell/etc quality papers go in alongside whatever nonsense RFK forces being allowed to be published in public data sources. But otherwise it isn't an inherently bad thing to have publicly paid research data be publicly accessible.

Re:

[rickb928]

Um, this looks like a policy of instant 'publishing'.

So the for-profit publishers will suffer? And their value proposition was, what? Peer review? We know how valuable that is.

Re:

[Gilgaron]

That's why the scientists won't necessarily be upset. The publications do some gatekeeping which may or may not have been useful before, but may be a bit missed when pendants of crystalized ivermectin get published as Generally Recognized As Safe alongside real science for the next few years at minimum.

Re:

[whitroth]

A lot of NIH, and other government research, is available - but you might have to subscribe, say, to pub.med... which libraries are.

And no, there's not any study that ever said ivermectin was the answer.

ObDisclosure: I worked as a contractor at the NIH for 10 years, retiring in '19.

Re:

[Harvey Manfrenjenson]

Pubmed (not "pub.med") doesn't require a subscription. You can access it free from any web browser.

The problem is that Pubmed only gives you the abstract, not the actual paper. It'll provide a *link* to the paper, but most of the papers are paywalled, and accessing the paper is stupidly expensive-- like $35-$45 per article, or thousands of dollars per year if you want a subscription to the journal itself.

Also, addressing the OP's point... I have no idea why in particular #47's administration is advancing

Re:

[smap77]

In respected journals, peer review is currently the best thing out there. Show us an alternative.

The flip side is non-peer-reviewed journals. We know how valuable that is.

Re:

[rickb928]

Consider this [arstechnica.com]

Re:

[wed128]

So Slashdot complains endlessly about the for-profit academic publishing industry, but if Donald Trump does something to damage that industry they must be defended?

Re:

[wed128]

But this doesn't "Set the hospital on fire". It allows taxpayers to have access to the research that they *already paid for*; the status quo is to publish in a for-profit journal, who holds the information (which again, the public already should own) for ransom. The service that these journals provide is some degree of peer-review and gatekeeping, but every time i've ever heard about peer review being audited there's a bunch of fraud, non-reproducable results, etc.... so what are we actually paying them for

Re:

[Tony Isaac]

Even a stopped clock gets the time right twice a day. I don't really care about the Trump administration's motives in this context, if they're doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, I'm still OK with that.

Re:

[Can'tNot]

I don't see this as "the right thing." This was going to go into effect in December anyway, there's very little benefit in moving up that timetable. This just seems like another example of Trump demanding that people abandon their plans and do what he says now now now.

Maybe this is Trump's attempt to co-opt a plan that wasn't his. So that Trump can put his name on it, and blame Biden for acting too slowly.

Re:

[Tony Isaac]

There are plenty of Biden-initiated programs that were "the right thing," that Trump summarily canceled. He could easily have done this here too, but he didn't. A win is a win, in my book.

Re:

[sabbede]

Your bias prevents you from recognizing reality.

Re:

[Woeful Countenance]

That's not entirely correct. What I've heard from various universities is that they're not receiving funding. There haven't been official announcements or stop-work orders, the money is just not arriving. It isn't just DEI programs or COVID research or the other known targets, and it isn't only the universities known to be special targets of retribution, like Harvard and Columbia. A lot of money has just stopped flowing since about March.

Re:

[ArchieBunker]

If you listen to Republican politicians or their followers for even two seconds, it's obvious that their main point of contention is about the first letter and not letters two and three. That this didn't get cut shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone; the policies and programs being slashed by his administration are largely related to diversity specifically. They don't believe systemic racism/sexism/etc. exists (or exists anymore) and, in light of that, they believe it's unfair to have policies in place intended to correct for it.

Assuming you are in the camp of "Trump's policies in aggregate are a net negative" as I personally am, it would still behoove you to actually understand what he and his followers are and are not advocating, if only so you can form a cogent argument and plan of action against it and not be surprised any time something comes out of his administration that isn't mustache-twirling evil.

You mean like the medicaid cuts? How is that related to diversity? https://www.politico.com/live-... [politico.com]

Re: How is it surprising?

[drinkypoo]

If they cut Medicaid then here in California where we currently aid the undocumented with our program called Medi-cal (which is really just Medicaid plus some other programs), we will probably not be able to afford to do that. We will need to spend what money we have for the purpose of aiding citizens who have been cut off because this administration wants them dead.

Re:

[jenningsthecat]

If you listen to Republican politicians or their followers for even two seconds, it's obvious that their main point of contention is about the first letter and not letters two and three.

I dunno. At least some of them are fully aware that RFK junior is the polar opposite of any health-promoting initiative, yet they all give their full-throated approval to the whack-job. Also, their cutting of 20k jobs at the FDA - pretty much ending that agency's food inspection activities - tells me that they don't give a flying fuck about keeping the population healthy. So no, I'd say that they don't like any part of the "National Institutes of Health".

...the policies and programs being slashed by his administration are largely related to diversity specifically. They don't believe systemic racism/sexism/etc. exists (or exists anymore) and, in light of that, they believe it's unfair to have policies in place intended to correct for it.

Are you living in the same world as the rest of us? T

More accurately

[Woeful Countenance]

"Starting today, if there were any researchers being funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), then they would be required to make their scientific papers available to read for free as soon as they are published in a peer-reviewed journal."

Simple solution: don't fund anybody, and then nobody is obligated to provide free access.

And yet

[smooth wombat]

People no longer have access to the National Archives, the largest repository of information in the country. Even the Natoinal Archives web site has removed tons of information.

So much for "transparency".

Equal access

[RoccamOccam]

Apparently, the new administration redirected the policy to provide "equal" access (which is great) instead of "equitable" access (which is potentially racist and problematic).

Re:Equal access

[kwelch007]

Yeah, I don't see the link between requiring publicly funded research to be...you know...public and DEI. Seems TFA made a bit of a logical leap with that assertion.

Re:

[sabbede]

Spurious information the author should not have included, and that the editor should have corrected before publishing. It indicates an unrecognized and uncorrected partisan bias in a place where it does not belong.

Damn if you do

[rickkw]

It seems like in the current political climate, when Biden did anything, the GOP decries betrayal. And when Trump does anything, the Democrats fouls. Anything.

Re: Damn if you do

[drinkypoo]

Republicans are mass shooters.

Democrats are the Uvalde police.

Re:

[sabbede]

Were you trying to prove the OP's point?

OA sites and APC fees

[Forever Wondering]

Side note: Ironically, the linked article on nature.com about open access for journal articles is paywalled [login for "free" access, but still ...]. You only see this if you try to scroll to get the final part of the article.

The talked about APCs (article processing charges) that can amount to thousands of dollars? Supposedly, OA journals make their money from authors paying these (vs. paywalling readers).

Nature talks about paying these APC for the authors (i.e. we're doing you a favor when you go with us) to reuplink to OA journals. But, what OA journals need to charge this amount if the articles have been already reviewed/vetted by nature.com et. al.?

"Pubmed Central" is the NIH's website where the article must be catalogged/published to be in compliance with the law(?). I presume there are no such APC for it.

So, if the articles are available there, why have OA sites that charge thousands? The ongoing costs are maintaining an Amazon AWS (or google cloud, azure, etc).
Or self-hosting (cost of equipment, rental of equipment cage space, internet connection, and electricity).

Or, what about arxiv.org? AFAIK, it's completely free. Ditto for plos.org

Maybe the OA sites that feel the need to charge [IMO, excessive] fees could put up torrent magnet links??? ;-)

Stretching the word "equity"

[Tony Isaac]

a move that has surprised some scholars. That's because, although the Trump team has declared itself a defender of taxpayer dollars, it has also targeted programmes and research projects focused on equity and inclusion for elimination. And one of the policy's main goals is to ensure equitable access to federally funded research.

This paragraph is nothing more than flamebait for Republicans, or if not, it's so clueless that it's laughable.

Trump's crusade against "equity and inclusion" (DEI) is about eliminating programs that favor minority races or sexual orientations by lowering standards or otherwise intentionally favoring minorities.

By contrast, the goal of ensuring "equitable access" has nothing to do with race or sexual orientation. It simply means that everyone can have access, where before, only those who paid could have acce