NIH-Funded Science Must Now Be Free To Read Instantly (nature.com) 28
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.
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 (Score:5, Funny)
NIH? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And your point is?
Re: (Score:2)
He is decrying nihilism.
Is Anyone Deluded About This? (Score:3)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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: (Score:1, Flamebait)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
"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 (Score:2)
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)
Re:Equal access (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Damn if you do (Score:2)
Re: Damn if you do (Score:3)
Republicans are mass shooters.
Democrats are the Uvalde police.
OA sites and APC fees (Score:3)
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??? ;-)