[HN Gopher] Guidance to make federally funded research freely av... ___________________________________________________________________ Guidance to make federally funded research freely available without delay Author : mattkrisiloff Score : 736 points Date : 2022-08-25 16:33 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.whitehouse.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.whitehouse.gov) | causi wrote: | Taxpayer-funded research should automatically enter the public | domain, period. Anything less is theft. | jimcavel888 wrote: | KyleLewis wrote: | Really happy this is happening! There's no reason we shouldn't be | able to freely read research funded by NIH, NSF, etc., and | there's a ton of high impact work there. | asdff wrote: | NIH research at least already had a public access requirement | chrisamiller wrote: | But that was after an embargo period of 12 months, during | which a journal could paywall it. This forces immediate | availability, which is a good thing. | sytse wrote: | Great to see this. Expect scientific publishers to start | increasing their open access fees. | Animats wrote: | _" All agencies will fully implement updated policies, including | ending the optional 12-month embargo, no later than December 31, | 2025."_ | | Why does this need a 3 year transition period? Six months would | be plenty. | jltsiren wrote: | It has something to do with money and budgeting, at least. | | Academics must still publish in the same prestige journals as | before to earn merits for jobs, promotions, grants, and prizes. | Those journals are largely published by for-profit publishers | that want their money one way or another. If their subscription | revenues will be lower, they will want more money from open | access fees. While subscriptions were usually paid by | university libraries that receive their funding from various | sources, open access fees are often the responsibility of the | individual PI. | | Some universities have agreements with some publishers that the | library will pay open access fees for their researchers. Others | will try to negotiate them, but negotiations take time. When | there are no such agreements, the PI must pay the open access | fees from their grants. That means grant agencies must | establish policies on how much funding to include for that in | their grants, and the money has to come from somewhere. The | agencies must decide whether to reduce the number of grants or | the amount of money available for other purposes. They may also | request more funding from the Congress, but that takes a lot of | time and the outcome is uncertain. | Fomite wrote: | There were a lot of agreements with journals, etc. | [deleted] | rgovostes wrote: | Unusual in light of the title of the page being "OSTP Issues | Guidance to Make Federally Funded Research Freely Available | _Without Delay_ ". | atlasunshrugged wrote: | Maybe it's less about the agencies technical ability and more | about making it long enough that the current beneficiaries of | this don't oppose it as strongly as they would if it disrupted | their biz in the next 2-4 quarters so that it can actually get | done. | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | Your talking about the parasitic scientific publishing | 'industry' * ? | | The 'industry' which funded none of the work, and charges the | people who did do the work to host a PDF behind a paywall? | | The 'industry' where most of the journal editors and referees | are volunteers? | | That 'industry'? | | * I think its disingenuous to call something an industry if | it produces nothing. | ebiester wrote: | Unless an alternative to the current publishing system | comes, the new grants will need to add a cost to publish | any papers that come out of the study. | nwiswell wrote: | Well, if nothing else, it produces profits... and profits | pay for lobbyists. | | At least in the Washington understanding, an "industry" is | any profit-seeking entity or association which has | lobbyists representing its interests. (What would you say | are the "products" of the hedge-fund "industry"?) | | I suppose you could call this a special-interest group | instead, but it's a little pedantic. | atlasunshrugged wrote: | Yes, it produces profits which indeed can pay for | advocacy and also has jobs and where there are jobs there | are congresspeople with people who might lose jobs in | their district and therefore a potential wrench in any | policy change. | | Edit for data to paint a clearer picture: The co I know | best in this space is Elsevier which according to their | Wikipedia has more than 8,000 employees. I don't know | where they're distributed (it's a Dutch co) but if you | represent a certain district or consituency and all of a | sudden your area might lose thousands of jobs, you | listen, even if you don't particularly like that | industry. | torstenvl wrote: | Woah boy. You drastically overestimate the alacrity of the U.S. | federal government. Also, keep in mind that existing contracts | may not permit the updated policies to be "fully" implemented, | and premature "termination for convenience" is a great way to | screw the American taxpayer. | nwiswell wrote: | It seems like the language of the XO could simply specify | "six months, or the soonest time which would be allowed | without penalty by the relevant contracts, but in no case | longer than three years." | IncRnd wrote: | Many of these things, dates of the start (or end) of laws + | rules + EOs, are regularly set with a timeframe years away and | right after the next President sits in office. There is a real | pattern of this. | culturestate wrote: | _> Why does this need a 3 year transition period? Six months | would be plenty._ | | For the same reason aircraft carriers need five miles to stop - | it's a _really big ship_ and there's an extraordinary amount of | inertia to be overcome. | robocat wrote: | > aircraft carriers need five miles to stop | The shortest distance that I stopped the Carrier while going | at 34 knots (top speed) was 1.2 nautical miles (NM). This | takes several minutes and involves Backing Bells (reversing | the spin of propellers), which is hard on the engines. The | command is "All Engines, Back Full, Emergency, Indicate 000 | (or 999 as necessary)"[1] | | However this was the only quote I found that said this | though. | | [1] https://www.quora.com/How-difficult-is-it-to-stop-an- | aircraf... | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | The fuck are you even talking about? An afternoon at best to | turn off the paywall and simply link to the PDF's. | awillen wrote: | It's the federal government, not a startup in your garage. | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | Its not the federal government, its federally funded | research. Its Elsevier. Its Scihub. Its JSTOR. | | An afternoon is more than plenty. | kanzure wrote: | I believe the federally funded research rules are about | prohibiting future ongoing publication at venues that are | not in compliance with the policy, rather than the | government directly compelling private businesses to take | down the paywalls. | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | You don't understand what is being discussed here. The | guidance was given to federal agencies to figure out how | to make their research available publicly. There was no | guidance given to publishers, they don't have to do | anything. Read the memo. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp- | content/uploads/2022/08/08-202... | pavon wrote: | Yes the agencies will have to survey all the ways that | their spending goes into research. Some of these will be | obvious like NSF grants. Others will be more gray area | like R&D contracts. They will have to modify the rules | for each of these processes, and train employees on the | new rules. There may be existing contracts that will have | to be renegotiated. Some of the agencies may have legally | mandated processes they have to follow when making | changes to rules, which may include public comment | periods. Many agencies will be able to make the change | within a year, but some will have legitimate reasons for | taking longer. Three years is generous, but not | ridiculous. | afarrell wrote: | Not if one of the people who would do that is currently | on a boat in Lake Winnipesaukee. | | Not if {insert 20 other sources of complexity that exist | in the real world}. | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | Give them an afternoon and then charge them a $2500 a day | fine for any federally funded research not made | available. They'll fix it that afternoon. I'm sure Jake | can remote in from Lake Winnipesaukee. | | Apolegetics for bad, unethical, and world damaging | polices, be it corporate or otherwise, are unacceptable. | afarrell wrote: | It is more important to: | | 1. Have a sense of proportion. | | 2. Respect people's work-life boundaries. | [deleted] | FabHK wrote: | This is guidance to federal agencies to update their | policies to require free access for results they funded | going forward. | | So, the issue is not to flip a switch on a server to | disable a paywall. The issue is to change official policy | at many agencies, which will then trickle down. You can't | just retroactively change the terms on existing grants. | geysersam wrote: | Simple solution: stop prosecuting SciHub and link to them | from official websites. They've already solved this | problem. | [deleted] | e-clinton wrote: | Paywalls aren't setup by first parties here. And likely all | content isn't either. | hh3k0 wrote: | Perhaps they'd like to see if geopoliticial conflicts due to | the uncertainty of the impending doom that is climate change | make it unnecessary. | | Imagine doing all that work for nothing, as there was societal | collapse just around the corner! | anm89 wrote: | It's funny how the political class understands the things like | this that need to be done, they just don't care at all until they | are heading into an election cycle they are about to lose. Then | suddenly the political will is suddenly found. | [deleted] | thfuran wrote: | You think this is a big populist vote grab? | d23 wrote: | I'd love to live in a country where moves like this are | considered populist pandering. | atlasunshrugged wrote: | Somehow this doesn't seem like an issue a politician is going | to campaign on.. I mean you can talk about women's | rights/abortion, gun violence, student debt, the economy, | Ukraine, or... access to federally funded research? There are | only so many press hits, tv ad dollars, and speech time | politicians have to get their message out. I doubt this makes | anyone's list. | [deleted] | efitz wrote: | I hope this will include research at universities where | government grants are involved. | | On the topic of openness, we also need to ensure open access to | government records even when involved parties are trying to use | NDAs (StingRay) or copyright (many municipal building codes) to | hide government records. | elefanten wrote: | Seems like a good thing. Any downsides to this? Any low hanging | fruit it misses in making research more open access? | wolfi1 wrote: | the publication fees (paid by the authors) seem to be | considerably higher | Fomite wrote: | My lab's gotten hit by some hefty publication fees this year | - it's painful for early career researchers, but in | aggregate, this is a good thing. | nequo wrote: | Elsevier pockets a 30+ percent profit margin.[1] Nothing | besides market power forces them to push this to the authors. | | [1] https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX- | Group/documents/re... (page 23) | FabHK wrote: | I hope this (White House Office of Science and Technology | Policy guidance) is another nail in Elsevier's coffin. | Fomite wrote: | Some society-level journals that are used to help support their | respective societies are likely going to struggle a bit. | | That doesn't mean this isn't worth doing (it is), but it's | going to be a thing. | hikingsimulator wrote: | I don't see any to be honest. Public money, public access. | commandlinefan wrote: | Definitely agree it's a good thing - my libertarian core can't | help but wonder if the white house has (or ought to have) the | power to unilaterally declare this, though. Would much prefer | this had been voted on by congress. | twblalock wrote: | It's policy guidance issued by the executive branch to the | Federal agencies, which is well within the President's | authority. | | Of course, that also means that another president could | reverse this policy just as easily. If Congress passed a law | it would be harder to reverse. | pdonis wrote: | _> that also means that another president could reverse | this policy just as easily_ | | Which, since the deadline for full implementation is | December 2025, is not at all a farfetched possibility. | dimator wrote: | i wonder why this is not a law already? at first i assumed | lobbying, but i can't imagine the journal racket to be that | lucrative to influence the required number of legislators to | block the law, unlike oil or insurance. this seems like such | a no-brainer issue, but i would love to hear the spin. | pksebben wrote: | I'm sure there's a ton of special interests who wouldn't | want all the research made public. the oil industry | immediately comes to mind. so does tobacco, gambling, | pharma, and farming. | porcoda wrote: | For consumers of the information and those paying for it, it's | all upside to me. My only prediction for downside will be | increased author fees for open access publications. Some venues | have ridiculously high fees for open access authors, which is a | barrier for some (not every author is funded by a research | grant or in a department with a budget that can cover such | fees). I expect they'll go even higher, and the available | exceptions or discounts will be more stringent. To me, the | upsides vastly outweigh that downside though, so I'm very happy | to see this move. | krull10 wrote: | It is not just a barrier for researchers without lots of | grant funding, but also diverts public funds from funding | more research and research personnel to paying significant | publication fees. This really needed a complementary cap on | what would be allowed in paying such fees via grants to bring | the costs down. | dwheeler wrote: | Wonderful!! This will save $billions in US universities (at | least) and speed research around the world. | hammock wrote: | Does this apply to the Pfizer studies that were going to take 55 | years to release? | | https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to... | Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: | 100% agree with this. Paywalls for publicly funded research is bs | and always has been. This should also be true for all state- | funded or even municipally funded research (if there is any). | Also should be true for non-profits who fund research (the tax | exempt status is a form of public funding). Also any paper | published by someone employed at university that receives any | form of public funding or tax breaks should also be included. So | the only ones who should be allowed to publish research behind | paywalls are private for-profit companies who completely self- | funded their work. And even they should, for the best interest of | everyone, also use open access. | joshe wrote: | Very nice. Dark Brandon rising. | | Worth pointing out that academics have been stuck on this since | around 1997. Physicists and most other tech fields mostly solved | it with arxiv (founded in 1991!). | | Academia and especially the humanities is probably the least | cooperative and worst at coordination problems of any big sector | of our civilization. Good to remember when they are offering | advice. | anigbrowl wrote: | _Academia and especially the humanities is probably the least | cooperative and worst at coordination problems_ | | I have asked a lot of academics why they don't work across | departmental/institutional lines to strategize against | administrators/regents. You'd think sociologists, economists, | and lawyers would be able to take on the rather glaring market | failures in academia, but those who don't already have tenure | and a fiefdom all seem to be teetering on the edge of economic | insecurity and can't risk the career destruction. | | It might just be that there are too many credentialed people | chasing too few research and teaching positions, but it's a sad | state of affairs however you look at it. | stjohnswarts wrote: | I really wish they would have called him Darth Brandon :( . Big | opportunity missed. | [deleted] | krull10 wrote: | This is a good thing overall, but it only half addresses the | issue. Now journal fees to authors will simply go up to cover the | difference, making it harder for researchers without lots of | grant funding to publish (journals can now be over $6000 per | article), and even more tax payer dollars will be going towards | paying these fees for those researchers funded by gov grants | (money that could be better spent funding students, postdocs and | researchers). This really needed to be coupled with a requirement | to cap per article charges for grant-funded work, which would | have benefited all researchers. | chrisamiller wrote: | It will force publishers to either add real value or be swept | away by new models of publishing that aren't simply rent- | seeking. It will take time to change, but this is another hole | in the dike. It'll probably be messy for a couple of years, but | I welcome the opportunity to shake things up. | trevcanhuman wrote: | Serious question: What do journals actually do ? Do they check | the article ? Why is it important for it to be in a journal ? | | I don't know much about academic research, fyi. | | I think it's also a midway proposal for other reasons. The | proposal merely suggests open access but barely specifies | anything. I don't want to give the government personal | information and enable endless tracking to them just because I | want to download a paper. | anigbrowl wrote: | The find one or more well-credentialed and cited experts in | the field to anonymously review the paper and point out | shortcomings in the research or drafting - this is the 'peer' | part of peer review. Then they either accept for publication, | suggest revisions, or reject it outright. | jjk166 wrote: | Note that the peer reviewers doing the work are unpaid | volunteers, the people receiving the money are just | middlemen. | tylerneylon wrote: | I fully agree. The US's academic system provides a lot of | insulation to researchers because generally this publishing | cost will be paid for by your employing company, by your | university, or by a grant. So researchers are not incentivized | to spend a ton of time worrying about it. At the same time, I | believe the large majority of researchers don't realize how | little (or negative, arguably) value they receive from paying | for publication vs doing so for free (such as on arxiv). | | Specifically, online academic publishing is, at its core, | indexing and hosting pdf files. It is some work to do a good | job. But it's also quite achievable to re-create the same | service without asking for much, if anything, from authors. | Given a little funding, every field could use arxiv or their | version of arxiv (which is free to publish on). The bottleneck | to a large-scale change is the self-sustaining prestige of a | paid journal's badge. | | As a first step, we can spread awareness among authors of how | crazy it is to pay so much to publish. | anigbrowl wrote: | _This really needed to be coupled with a requirement to cap per | article charges for grant-funded work_ | | It'd be nice if there were just a different model. I do a lot | of research in a niche field and would like to publish some of | it. But the enormous submission fees are unaffordable as a non- | academic with no connection to grant infrastructure. I had | thought that rigor and reproducibility would be the main | hurdles, but it's pretty discouraging to have or be close to | publication-quality datasets and discover how steep the | financial wall is. I was aware of submission fees for papers, | but until recently had been under the impression that they were | an order of magnitude lower. | dwheeler wrote: | You're right it doesn't fully address the issue, but it _does_ | provide some pressure. | | If an article is available for free immediately, there's no | need to spend $6K to make it available at _all_. | | Researchers want to be in specific locations because of their | prestige. However, when all US-funded research is also | available _outside_ that location, the walled garden of | prestige becomes rather porous. Especially since the reviewers | typically aren 't paid either. | krull10 wrote: | I don't think the promotion and prestige incentives can be | fixed easily by academics. Their promotion, earnings, ability | to change universities, and recognition depend on publishing | in the most prestigious journals they can. | | In contrast, the government could easily fix this by simply | not providing the money currently required by such journals, | which would force them to come up with models that can work | with lower fees. | | I hope you are right though! | geoalchimista wrote: | > Researchers want to be in specific locations because of | their prestige. However, when all US-funded research is also | available outside that location, the walled garden of | prestige becomes rather porous. Especially since the | reviewers typically aren't paid either. | | You are assuming researchers are saintly figures dwelling in | a vacuum who don't need to constantly prove to their | department head or promotion evaluation committee of their | worth. That is not the case. The walled gardens are desirable | for some because their social functions are not easily | replaceable. | | One way to decouple the evaluation of scientific output from | the walled garden is simply to stop using them as a gate- | keeper in making hiring and research grant distribution | decisions. But apart from the constant lip service, there is | no momentum in doing anything concrete about this in | academia. | verdverm wrote: | > Eliminating the optional 12-month publication embargo for | federally funded peer-reviewed research articles. | | I hope this means that Fed Funded research publications will | always be free to access from day 0 to day [?] | wikitopian wrote: | I've been relying on making stuff up and then linking to | paywalled articles to win my internet arguments, so this is a big | setback for me. | atlasunshrugged wrote: | Maybe try Forbes or Business Insider? The former definitely | seems like it is happy with a pay to play model | anigbrowl wrote: | Just rebrand yourself as a data scientist and tell them to read | it on your medium page and then immediately blocking them on | social media. Do an occasional freebie piece about how you're | the victim of an ugly new trend and watch your follower count | soar. | aaaddaaaaa1112 wrote: | ProjectArcturis wrote: | Scihub's servers breathed a sigh of relief. | lofatdairy wrote: | A song on the world's smallest violin for publishing companies | executives. The fact that this asinine situation has reached this | point to begin with is an embarrassment, and that it didn't end | when we lost Aaron Swartz is a tragedy. | [deleted] | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | The loss of Aaron Swartz has always been the date when the | timeline went dark for me. | jhallenworld wrote: | Great! How about we reduce the cost of college by eliminating the | equally parasitical textbook industry? | fabian2k wrote: | That's pretty much entirely in the hands of the universities | and professors. To a large degree this is really a US-specific | problem, US textbooks are easily 2-3 times as expensive as | elsewhere. And the cause is likely that US universities require | specific textbooks for courses, which is not how it works e.g. | in Germany where I studied. I had a single course that required | a specific textbook, which cost like ~50 EUR at regular price. | Every other textbook I bought I selected myself, and they | almost all were really worth their price. | | Requiring specific textbooks in specific editions removes all | market forces and direct competition. It also kills the second- | hand market and makes it much more difficult for libraries. | When students are free to choose which textbooks to buy or rent | from a library you get a much healthier market. | derbOac wrote: | My department seriously discussed making our own textbooks for | at least one class. The idea never got off the ground, although | I think it was a good idea. Part of the reason really is that | there were no incentives for doing so, no real teaching or | research credit, no grant dollars brought it, etc. The other | end of it too was that there was a lot of pressure to turn it | into a profit-making venture. Rather than it be open-source, | for example, to keep the money in-house with the idea that it | would lower costs for students and keep the money in the | department instead of a publisher. | | So, good idea but too much pressure on departments to be | bringing in indirect grant funds, and not enough incentive to | release it openly. I think some people in some places can get | away with it, but not everywhere. | hedora wrote: | Your story makes it pretty clear what the solution is: | | Change college accreditation / federal financial support | rules so that the cost of textbooks is rolled up in the | university's tuition fee, and standardize tuitions across | departments within each university. | guelo wrote: | The problem is the professors are the parasites in many cases. | reidjs wrote: | There are ways for students to side-step the problem (textbook | resale, piracy, libraries), unfortunately lazier professors are | using the textbook company homework websites as part of their | grading metric. | loeg wrote: | As college expenses go, textbooks were less than 1% of my costs | attending a public university as a state resident. The industry | may be just as parasitic but I don't think it would appreciably | help reduce college expenses. | jhallenworld wrote: | 6% in 2014 according to this.. | | https://thecrite.com/home/2014/04/29/the-hidden-cost-of- | educ... | | But even if it's low, it's also low hanging fruit for a big | problem. | sa501428 wrote: | https://openstax.org/ has been working on this. | m463 wrote: | I think there needs to be good textbooks, but there could be | some GOOD rules for conflicts of interest with respect to who | chooses/requires which textbooks. | ejb999 wrote: | you mean like my kid's class a few years back, where the | 'textbook' was about $75, and was written by the person | getting paid to teach the class, and was just about 150 pages | of plain white paper stapled together with no binding? | | Get paid to teach the class, and then also make 100 or more | students pay for some photocopies, the money which goes | directly into the professors pocket - oh yea, and then change | a few paragraphs each year and tell next year's class they | can't rely on previous years books - i.e. no resale market | for the 'book' you just bought. | mataug wrote: | I'm honestly surprised this wasn't done before, but its better | late than never | hedora wrote: | They somehow manage to avoid using the words "copyright" and | "patent" anywhere in the press release or the memorandum. | | I assume they mean for this to apply only to copyrights over the | actual text of the published paper and supporting data, but it's | strange that they are so vague. | TeeMassive wrote: | I wonder if it applies to overseas labs? | digitalmaster wrote: | Aaron Swartz | ajankelo wrote: | Hugely important. Great win for all. | guerby wrote: | In France since 2018: | | https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/fr/le-plan-nat... | | Approximate translation: | | The national plan for open science announced by Frederique Vidal | on July 4th 2018 makes open access mandatory for articles and | data from state funded projects. | jschveibinz wrote: | There is a tiny caveat in here that has yet to be discussed: | freely available to US taxpayers. | | How will this be implemented? Will there be controlled access by | SSN? Restrictions against public release? A world-wide license | agreement? | | What about SBIR work? | | It will be interesting to see how this plays out legally. | biomcgary wrote: | I was granted an SBIR grant for a small biotech that I | previously worked for. We were very careful about what we | funded on the grant, because even under the current rules that | government can use the research, if they choose (although I | think this is rare). | bglazer wrote: | This is good news. Academic publishers are parasites and anything | that reduces their stranglehold on academic knowledge is good. | That said, parasites are, if nothing else, resilient. | | So, there's a few issues that I'm concerned about. First, it's | not clear to me that university libraries will be able to drop | their subscriptions to these journals based on this decision. The | vast majority of research receives some federal funding, but | there will still be some subset of articles that are funded | through private research grants and will still sit behind a | paywall. Journal subscriptions are a huge drag on library | budgets, so freeing that money up would be immensely beneficial. | Second, I can see the journals reacting to this by going full | open access, but charging massive "fees" to publish. Right now | Nature charges >$10k to publish open access, and I'd expect them | to ratchet that up as it becomes their primary vector to siphon | tax payer money into their own pockets. This seems to be the | playbook based on the European "Plan S" push for open access. | expensive_news wrote: | Maybe I'm missing something, but if Nature charges that much to | publish why does anyone publish in Nature? Why don't academics | just create their own 'ethically priced' journal? It's my | understanding that most of Nature's labor is voluntary and | unpaid anyway. | [deleted] | permo-w wrote: | Nature is very, very prestigious | ModernMech wrote: | You can create your own ethically priced journal any day of | the week, but if no one reads it, no one will publish to it. | And if no one publishes to it, no one will read it. Offering | cheap or free publishing doesn't solve this chicken-and-egg | problem, unfortunately. Quite the opposite; it signals that | the researchers who publish there are only doing so because | they can't afford the publishing fees of larger journals, | presumably because their research isn't interesting or | noteworthy enough to attract enough money to do so. Honestly, | $10k is a drop in the bucket when grants are in the millions. | krull10 wrote: | Grants are only in the millions in certain fields. But more | than that, $10K per paper, budgeted for 2-3 papers a year | in a 3-5 year grant across all the NIH grants, is a lot of | taxpayer money that could be better spent funding students, | postdocs, and researchers. | spanktheuser wrote: | This certainly would seem to be the next logical move for the | prestige journals. However, in the long term I think this | decision to provide open access to the research allows new | journals to compete on a more even footing, especially with the | emergence of publishing and peer review services like | Scholastica. Over time, a thoughtfully curated journal with | advantages in speed, cost, editorial focus, peer review | process, etc. may be able to overcome the journals whose | advantage lie primarily in prestige & gate-keeping. | jimcavel888 wrote: | Test0129 wrote: | Having done a short stint dealing with this stuff I am glad | something is being done. NIST/NSF funded several studies that I | was close to that were suddenly owned by a journal who did | nothing but provide a place to put it. | | Public money should always mean public access. Not just for | journals, but for anything. If one red cent of taxpayer money | goes to it, the taxpayer should get it for free. Hopefully the | trend continues. | stjohnswarts wrote: | I agree. All that data should be publically available for | reproduction of the work as well as open season. No one should | be able to patent it either, or should only be able to file a | patent to make it "publically available into perpetuity" to | protect it. If tax dollars funded it, we own it as a society. | If companies foot the bill then maybe something more | complicated needs to exist, but if it is 100% public funded, | universities should not be able to sell it off to corps. | koheripbal wrote: | I assume military R&D would be a big exception? | logisticseh wrote: | It's the other way around -- academic R&D is just about the | _only_ type of government spending for which there 's wide- | spread support for openness and a lack of entrenched power | against openness. | | The USG spent $6B on cloud computing in 2020. That number is | increasing quickly. To say nothing of the massive quantities | of non-OSS software that the government buys and incorporates | into is own business-critical processes. And it's not just | government licenses, but also anyone who interacts with the | government. E.g., try interacting with any government agency | without an Office 365 license. | | You get really funny looks if you say that MSFT should have | to give away Office 365 for free if the government is going | to use it for anything. | | But total USG spend on closed-source software has to be well | into the 30B-50B range conservatively. For reference, the | entire NSF budget is $10B. | | The main reason for this is that there are many monied and | powerful stakeholders who benefit from selling closed | software to USG, whereas the academic publishers a tiny, | often not even American-owned, and got super greedy and | screwed their natural contingency (academics hate them as | much as or more than anyone else). | adgjlsfhk1 wrote: | There's a difference between the government paying to use | software and paying for it to be developed. | logisticseh wrote: | Most of what the big contractors like Booz do is custom | software. Every single cloud provider has an entire | GovCloud division. Even Office has special Government | licensing that behaves differently on the backend. | pksebben wrote: | I think part of the point here, is that the value from | that investment should go to the investors, who are (if | you buy the 'by the people, for the people' hype) the | taxpayers. | | Say I'm vulture capitalist Tom, and I pay a few gajillion | dollars to developer Gupta to create a product for me. I | would be understandably pissed if Gupta turned around and | sold that same product to competitor vc Janet. She didn't | pay for that dev work, I did. | logisticseh wrote: | 1. There isn't as much of a difference here as you think. | Contractors _do_ turn around and use components developed | in public contracts for other consulting projects. Most | commonly with other sovereigns, especially when the | original contract was with a city or state, but sometimes | at the national level as well. | | 2. With respect to R&D, one big difference is that the | government _doesn 't_ provide seed funding. They provide | grants. If the government wanted equity in research labs, | they'd have to pay a lot more. You'll see this in | practice if you ever have the extreme displeasure of | doing non-useless research in academia. Companies that | insist on IP ownership/sharing end up paying much higher | premiums for university research contracts. Repealing | Bayh-Dole would have no effect on the accessibility of | actually useful research; universities and companies | would privately fund the useful stuff and leave the | government to fund the labs of politically- | connected/twitter-famous but otherwise totally useless | academics. | | (To be clear: we're on the same side here with respect to | open access publications.) | rcthompson wrote: | I'm not sure the difference is as cut and dry as you're | making it out to be. A big organization doesn't just pay | Microsoft a zillion dollars for a million Office licenses | and then never talk to them again. There's an ongoing | support relationship, which for large enough customers | might include things like developing features on request. | JamesBarney wrote: | The other difference is if you had to open source anything | sold to the USG then no one would sell anything closed | source to the USG. | | And there's lots of useful software the government wants to | buy that is closed source. | aaaaaaaaata wrote: | Useful _to who_ , and for what? | elil17 wrote: | "public access to federally funded research results and data | should be maximized in a manner that protects | confidentiality, privacy, business confidential information, | and security, avoids negative impact on intellectual property | rights, innovation, program and operational improvements, and | U.S. competitiveness, and preserves the balance between the | relative value of long-term preservation and access and the | associated cost and administrative burden" | stjohnswarts wrote: | It would have to be. It's simply part of it being military, | state secrets, etc. | jjk166 wrote: | I don't think military R&D produces many academic papers, but | anything going in a journal a foreign national can just buy | should probably also be made available to the tax payer. | TulliusCicero wrote: | > If one red cent of taxpayer money goes to it, the taxpayer | should get it for free. | | This logic only works for easily-replicable goods, like | information. It falls apart when you consider various goods and | service that are not easily replicable, or where increased | demand can mean increased funding is necessary. E.g.: | | * So public housing can't be at least partially paid for by the | tenant, it must be completely free? | | * No bridge or road tolls anywhere, any time? | | * No paid street parking either, even in highly demanded areas, | like the middle of big cities, where demand needs to be managed | somehow | | * Any kind of license or permit or passport should all be free, | even for businesses? | rzazueta wrote: | We rely too much on money as a determining factor for things. | Money does not accurately reflect value, nor does it accurate | reflect contributions made to society. So, in that vain, I | agree with another poster who said this should all be free. | Perhaps with some changes. | | > * So public housing can't be at least partially paid for by | the tenant, it must be completely free? | | Depends on what you consider as payment. I'm in favor of | temporary housing (e.g. a tenant is expected to stay in the | area no more than five years) being owned and managed by the | city in which it's located. "Rent" would go toward | maintenance of the building and surrounds, with any extra | going back toward city services. Rent could be offset by a | number of things - tenant's physical contribution to the | maintenance, stipends for public service (e.g. teacher, | social workers, etc.), federal grants, etc. The city would be | expected to keep rents low. Maintenance could be handled by | parks and rec. This is, of course, all dependent on how the | city is set up, but I like it as a model. | | Permanent housing would also be handled by the city, but only | in terms of building and selling. Developers and real estate | agents have a _LOT_ of incentive to keep housing prices | climbing. Putting this in the hands of the city - not the | state, not the feds - has greater potential to help influence | positive growth with citizen input while reigning in costs. | | The part I have not solved for here is situations like | Atherton, which is heavily populated by rich white weirdos | who would rather no one other than their own live there, and | actively work to discriminate against "undesirables" moving | to their city (see the recent hullabaloo there regarding | affordable housing). On the one hand, if that's what their | democratically elected city government is pushing for, and | the citizens agree, that's basically democracy at work. But | you can't ignore the folks who are being left behind and | simply make them the "problem" of the next city over. | | > * No bridge or road tolls anywhere, any time? | | Nope. Tax the companies that ship goods on those roads and | bridges fairly and you'll recoup those costs. As should the | fees for vehicle licensing. | | > * No paid street parking either, even in highly demanded | areas, like the middle of big cities, where demand needs to | be managed somehow | | Nope. Parking is self-managed - if there's no spot, you can't | park. Adding money only fills the coffers of the local | government, it doesn't really do much to actually address the | issue. You may argue that the money could go toward adding | more parking structures, but I'd argue back it's wiser to | build cities that don't rely so heavily on motorized transit | for access. The more parking we add, the less room we have | for things like homes and small, locally owned businesses. | | > Any kind of license or permit or passport should all be | free, even for businesses? | | Licensing and passports and all that aren't public goods - | they're methods of tax collection, authentication (license | ID, passport) and authorization (you need a passport to | travel internationally). The fees you pay for them are what | ought to ultimately be paying for those services (in | addition, yes, to the other taxes we collect). | TulliusCicero wrote: | > We rely too much on money as a determining factor for | things. Money does not accurately reflect value, nor does | it accurate reflect contributions made to society. | | Yes, but nevertheless money works better than not doing | anything for stuff like street parking. It's simple and | effective. Perhaps another system would work better on | paper for allocating street parking, but I'm guessing most | other suggestions would be a lot more complicated and | brittle in practice. | TulliusCicero wrote: | Free parking is actually bad, particularly in cities, | though it's bad for reasons largely specific to cars. | | > Putting this in the hands of the city - not the state, | not the feds - has greater potential to help influence | positive growth with citizen input while reigning in costs. | | I'm leery of this; cities have generally shown themselves | to be easily swayed by NIMBY's when it comes to housing | policy. Just look at how California the state is constantly | trying to get cities to build more housing semi-willingly | through their local policies, and how pretty much all the | coastal cities (who are the same sort of liberals elected | to state-wide office, mind) just ignore that and do their | best to do the bare minimum. | | > Tax the companies that ship goods on those roads and | bridges fairly and you'll recoup those costs. | | Why though? Like, why is doing taxes on companies superior | to, say, general/road tax funds + bridge tolls? | | I'm open to the idea of making things free to the user, but | I'm not so dogmatic as to think it's the right answer 100% | of the time. | | > The fees you pay for them are what ought to ultimately be | paying for those services (in addition, yes, to the other | taxes we collect). | | Right, and I'm saying that this reasoning can apply to | other things as well. Just because something is at least | partially paid for by tax funds somewhere doesn't mean it | should have zero cost to the user (though certainly | sometimes that's true). | | I think this is more of an issue of the GP not having | explained _why_ they believe a single cent of public money | should mean zero cost for use. | elliotec wrote: | I see no reason why the answer shouldn't be "yes" to each of | those bullets. I don't think the logic falls apart. Public | goods and services should be public goods and services, full | stop. | TulliusCicero wrote: | It depends on the specific scenario. For parking, for | example, not charging for it when it's in high demand is | generally a bad idea, because you get "overconsumption": | people who barely even need it end up using it anyway (hey, | it's free!) while people who _really_ need it have a hard | time finding any available. So you 'll have, say, people | who are just storing their occasionally-used car for weeks | between uses on the street, while people who are just | parking to unload something right now can't get their stuff | done. | | Then you also end up with people spending a lot of time | circling around downtown looking for elusive free parking, | which is bad for both traffic and the environment. In | contrast, charging a "market rate" that usually leaves | 10-15% of parking spots open means that scenario is now | transparent and fast: you know you can usually quickly find | parking, you know how much it's gonna cost, you can make | the calculation ahead of time and execute fast. | vosper wrote: | One reason to put tolls on roads is to make the people who | use the infrastructure also the people who pay for it's | maintenance and improvements. Public goods are provided by | public money, and in some cases it might be fairer to get | some/most/all of that public money from the portion of the | public that are using the thing. | | Also as a disincentive to use something. Like we want | people to drive less in the urban core to reduce congestion | and also the air pollution that's killing thousands of | people every year. So we're going to put a charge on using | those roads. | CyanBird wrote: | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | I don't see how any of this applies. | | The infrastructure isn't paid for when it's built (including | the public house). It's financed on debt. Pay-by-use is just | a form of tax payment. | | It's just that the "use" for information is nearly free, so | it doesn't make sense to charge for usage. | | If the road was already completely paid for by tax-payers (no | debt), and then a toll company wanted to operate the road for | a 99% margin - you'd see a lot more people complaining about | that. | | Street parking is an interesting example in that the demand | charge is probably unrelated to the underlying cost. However, | it's just one of the many examples of taking tax dollars from | Pot A to pay for things in Pot B. | TulliusCicero wrote: | > The infrastructure isn't paid for when it's built | (including the public house). It's financed on debt. Pay- | by-use is just a form of tax payment. | | Sorry, I don't understand the relevance here. | | > It's just that the "use" for information is nearly free, | so it doesn't make sense to charge for usage. | | Exactly. It's easy to provide the information to | essentially infinite people for free, and there's no real | downside to doing so. | | > If the road was already completely paid for by tax-payers | (no debt), and then a toll company wanted to operate the | road for a 99% margin - you'd see a lot more people | complaining about that. | | For sure. Of course, real world charges for roads/parking | is a little more complicated than that. | | > Street parking is an interesting example in that the | demand charge is probably unrelated to the underlying cost. | However, it's just one of the many examples of taking tax | dollars from Pot A to pay for things in Pot B. | | Yeah, the most obvious reason to do this for street parking | is because you actively want to manage demand of a highly | demanded, finite resource. You don't really need the money, | but charging gets you other changes you want. Ditto for | congestion charges. | fudged71 wrote: | Does "public" here refer to nationally-available, or | internationally? Should I be able to access your taxpayer's | research? | RosanaAnaDana wrote: | All persons. The principals enshrined in the first paragraph | of the Declaration of Independence specify no nation in | particular. | | Freedom of information is a direct extension of the | Declaration of Independence. | elil17 wrote: | I would say the real reason is that it's pretty impractical | to limit it to just Americans given that we don't have any | sort of national e-identity. | stjohnswarts wrote: | we do through the international patent system. We should | get money back for our tax dollars, simple as that. We | could work it into international patents. I know some | countries ignore those, but we can make them pay in other | ways like tariffs and treaties. | stjohnswarts wrote: | We should be able to use the international patent system for | that. Make it publically open to any single "citizen" any | international corp seizing on it should have to pay patent | fees to the general fund of the US treasury or something set | up to feed it back into our government sponsored R&D | programs. | Test0129 wrote: | I was thinking nationally but honestly there's nothing | constitutionally that would prevent a non-citizen from | accessing the research. I guess, aside from | military/encryption research of course. | | I see no problem with publicly funded stuff being available | world-wide. But given the choice between nothing or taxpayer | only, the taxpayer should get first dibs. | biomcgary wrote: | Although I am generally supportive of research products | (data, papers, reagents) being broadly open, I think there is | the possibility of a perverse incentive to free-ride on the | scientific funding of other nations. As the velocity of | information (i.e., faster spread) and international mobility | of academics increases, the perverse incentive goes up. | mlindner wrote: | > If one red cent of taxpayer money goes to it, the taxpayer | should get it for free. Hopefully the trend continues. | | I wouldn't go this far. Part of the current revolution in the | private space industry is precisely allowing companies to own | products that were partially funded by taxpayer dollars. As it | encourages companies to fund their own money into it, rather | than simply relying 100% on government funding. | | Further if the government wants to encourage some industry, by | using tax dollars to fund it they would instead destroy that | industry. Many companies would end up simply refusing | government grants because they know they could never profitably | sell it if it would simply be copied. Or they would charge the | government significantly more for the product. | | Now yes, if the research is done at federal centers that simply | exist for research rather than creating products, yes | absolutely put it out for free immediately, so that it can get | into products faster. | briffle wrote: | Yep, that is how the Chinese government and industry has | gotten so far ahead in Flow Batteries: | https://www.opb.org/article/2022/08/03/the-u-s-made-a- | breakt... | sidewndr46 wrote: | I'm pretty sure the US doesn't need a revolution in the | federal government subsidizing private business ventures. | We've got more than enough of that already. The idea of | federal funding being verboten in the corporate world is more | akin to an ideal state, rather than one to be avoided. | heavyset_go wrote: | I feel the same about NIH funded research and development in | the medical space. | hyperbovine wrote: | NIH-funded research goes up on PubMed Central within 12 | months of publication: | | https://www.nih.gov/health-information/nih-clinical- | research... | heavyset_go wrote: | I meant with regard to the ability for anyone to use it | without, say, violating patents. Plenty of drugs discovered | and developed with NIH money go on to be patented by | private companies. | hyperbovine wrote: | When was this? The NSF has had a 12-month open access policy in | place for almost a decade now: | https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16009/nsf16009.jsp#q1 | andrewon wrote: | They should do the same for patent. I see companies and now | universities freely take tax payer money to develop their own | products. It just becomes an additional source of funding with | little string attached. | | It's fine to use tax dollar if there's potential for public good, | but the tech developed should be released to the public domain | right away. I have seen a selfless act from an academic group | making decision not to patent a technology because they felt its | an important one that many other things can be built on. Now tens | of companies were started based on that tech and counting. I hope | our gov understand how much value can be unlocked by public | domain technology. | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | So, we don't have to pay for the access, great. | | But searching for and collating all these tens of thousands of | papers in each federal repository will have to be done... | manually... by every researcher. | | .....Oh. You wanted search? You wanted indexing? You wanted a | centrally managed service to pull from all those different | federal repositories? Well, you're gonna need a company to | develop all that and run it. You can use it for a subscription | fee. That just happens to be the same cost as access to journals. | Or if you're lucky, subsidized by ads for Subway and Nike. | | There is no such thing as a free lunch, people. | hedora wrote: | Shh!!! if someone at Usenix finds out, the entire organization | will disappear in a puff of logic! | aaaaaaaaata wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | Sci-Hub is still illegal. If they made a completely separate | legal entity that respected copyright, sure, something like | that could work. Until that happens, the choice will be "do | everything manually" or "break the law", and I don't think a | whole lot of universities or corporations will be condoning | the latter. | pksebben wrote: | perhaps the law needs to change. | | There's also more interests in the world than corporations | and universities. an organizational Monopoly on ideas is | dangerous - it stifles innovation and destroys competition. | k099 wrote: | USG already publishes a ton of free data, like weather and | maps. The ecosystem of repackaging and building improved | services seems to be working fine because it opens up a broad | range of competitive options, not a paid embargo to a few. | ml_basics wrote: | As someone in the ML community where arxiv rules supreme, I | really do not understand why other communities do not also have | something similar. | | I get that there are some perverse incentives around, but there | is a relatively straightforward solution to all of the problems | with journals - just publish your work on the internet first so | that it's out in the open, then send it to some journal who can | make money from your hard work without adding any value, if you | still want to. | SiempreViernes wrote: | The humanities are weird, people write and defend their PhD and | then they can keep their _PhD thesis_ confidential _for | years_!? | | The theory seems to be that the thesis doesn't count as a | publication so you must keep it secret while they turn it into | papers/book?? | derbOac wrote: | There are similar things in other fields, but I think formal | peer review still supercedes them, at least as it's perceived. | Things are changing though. | | I do think unless there are some significant changes to the | system there will be some tipping point where journals will | start being ignored but I'm not sure how that will occur. | aaaaaaaaata wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub | Undercouves wrote: | I have a friend in economy, which is also a very clossed field | with respect to publishing research, and he said that doing so | might result in legal action taken against you, or pressure at | the least. | | That said, I'm in physics and everybody publishes on the ArXiv, | either before or after submiting to the journal. From what I | see (thanks to SciHub) the information on either of them is the | same, except when there is an update it usually is only | submited to the ArXiv. | nojito wrote: | Awesome! | | Now do patents. | franciscojgo wrote: | At last. I genuinely believe there should be classes in high | school teaching how to read papers as well. | | Around COVID, I'm sure +90% of the population relied on online | news sources giving their click-bait-y interpretation of studies. | (if at all read, perhaps just the abstract) | notacop31337 wrote: | I love this idea, maybe we can put it alongside the taxation | class along with all the other shit that should be taught to | create sensible, well adjusted humans. | dcroley wrote: | About damn time. | gigatexal wrote: | I 100% support this. This should happen. Tax payers paid it. Let | me have it all. F the middle men companies making a killing being | gatekeepers. Screw 'em | xor99 wrote: | Open source and replicable studies means going back to the | fundamentals of the scientific method so this is a good step. I | would love to see more peer-to-peer peer review technologies and | websites developed though. There really is no reason to have | publishing intermediaries in most cases. For example, many | conferences and proceedings are essentially run by associations | and societies etc. | songeater wrote: | Isn't this a big deal? Anyone have stats on how many research | papers (esp in fields like healthcare etc) have some federal | funding? Would funding received from a university/college (most | of whom receive federal funding in turn) also qualify? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-25 23:00 UTC)