Watch @marilenharo “science explain” that giving taxpayers access to the research they’ve paid for is really just DEI.
From 1 July, 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.
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.
Canada has had a similar policy since 2015 (yay, Harper), but researchers are allowed up to a year to make their work open access.
In practice I suspect it’s usually instantaneous. Most peer-reviewed subscription-based journals will make a paper immediately open access if you pay an extra fee.
What took so long? Of course it also means that the “peer reviewed journals” won’t be making as much money.
The usual procedure is for a journal to charge authors extra if they want their article to be open-access.
So, researchers pay to get their papers published. No wonder there is so much BS that passes as scientific research in the various journals.
There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Peer reviewing, editing, formatting, and publishing are all expensive. In return, the journal gets copyright of the paper, which allows them to charge subscribers to read the paper.
If an article is open access then the journal cannot recoup its expenses except by charging the authors a fee.
I notice you didn’t address the point I raise in my second sentence.
He is showing discretion, which in his case is wise. Is it wise to needle him out of it? I prefer this place when the sand stays quietly in the sandbox, invigorating though the alternatives can be.