Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Science

NIH-Funded Science Must Now Be Free To Read Instantly (nature.com) 26

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.

NIH-Funded Science Must Now Be Free To Read Instantly

Comments Filter:
  • by Pseudonymous Powers ( 4097097 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2025 @10:50AM (#65488792)
    Shh! You're going to tip off the current administration!
  • by Errol backfiring ( 1280012 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2025 @10:51AM (#65488796) Journal
    In most countries, NIH is the English abbreviation for "Not Invented Here [wikipedia.org]"
  • by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2025 @11:08AM (#65488838)

    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?

    • 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 fo
      • 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.

        • 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.
          • by whitroth ( 9367 )

            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.

        • by smap77 ( 1022907 )

          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.

    • by wed128 ( 722152 )
      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?
    • 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.

  • More accurately (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Woeful Countenance ( 1160487 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2025 @11:25AM (#65488870)

    "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.

  • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RoccamOccam ( 953524 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2025 @11:42AM (#65488912)
    Apparently, the new administration redirected the policy to provide "equal" access (which is great) instead of "equitable" access (which is potentially racist and problematic).
  • 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.
  • 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)

The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.

Working...