“We are pleased to see the U.S. Senate endorse language that strongly supports providing faster access to taxpayer-funded research results with today’s passage of the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (S. 1260).
Section 2527 of the bill, formerly the Endless Frontier Act, (titled “Basic Research”) includes language originally written by Senator Wyden and supported by Senator Paul that directs federal agencies funding more than $100 million annually in research grants to develop a policy that provides for free online public access to federally-funded research “not later than 12 months after publication in peer-reviewed journals, preferably sooner.”
The bill also provides important guidance that will maximize the impact of federally-funded research by ensuring that final author manuscripts reporting on taxpayer funded research are:
Deposited into federally designated or maintained repositories;
Made available in open and machine readable formats;
Made available under licenses that enable productive reuse and computational analysis; and
Housed in repositories that ensure interoperability and long-term preservation. …”
“Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council has proposed that immediate open-access publication of research resulting from its grants should become mandatory.
The council already requires researchers to list their patents on the government’s SourceIP website, but its existing policy allows a 12-month delay to open-access publication of NHMRC-funded research.
The proposed reforms would involve researchers publishing in open repositories, circumventing publishers’ fees, as well as publishing in traditional journals. Authors would be required to retain the rights to publish and share their work. It would also encourage researchers to release non-peer-reviewed preprints.
The proposals are contained in a discussion paper released by the council in April and would take effect from the beginning of 2022….”
“NHMRC supports the sharing of outputs from NHMRC funded research including publications and data. The aims of the NHMRC Open Access Policy are to mandate the open access sharing of publications and encourage innovative open access to research data. This policy also requires that patents resulting from NHMRC funding be made findable through listing in SourceIP….
NHMRC is seeking input from relevant stakeholders about proposed revisions to the Open Access Policy and Further Guidance. The proposed revisions are limited to sections of the documents about publications….”
This academic thought piece provides an overview of the history of, and current trends in, publishing practices in the scientific fields known to the authors (chemical sciences, social sciences and humanities), as well as a discussion of how open access mandates such as Plan S from cOAlition S will affect these practices. It begins by summarizing the evolution of scientific publishing, in particular how it was shaped by the learned societies, and highlights how important quality assurance and scientific management mechanisms are being challenged by the recent introduction of ever more stringent open access mandates. The authors then discuss the various reactions of the researcher community to the introduction of Plan S, and elucidate a number of concerns: that it will push researchers towards a pay-to-publish system which will inevitably create new divisions between those who can afford to get their research published and those who cannot; that it will disrupt collaboration between researchers on the different sides of cOAlition S funding; and that it will have an impact on academic freedom of research and publishing. The authors analyse the dissemination of, and responses to, an open letter distributed and signed in reaction to the introduction of Plan S, before concluding with some thoughts on the potential for evolution of open access in scientific publishing.
A recent analysis outlining alternative scenarios for the publishing market development in the United Kingdom (UK) suggests a strong likelihood of lose-lose outcomes for publishers and universities for mandate-driven transitions to Open Access.
“An HHMI lab head can meet the requirements of this policy for a specific article in the following ways:
• Publishing the “version of record” (the version that is published by the journal) under a CC BY license so that it is immediately and freely available to the public. For example, open access journals typically offer a CC BY license option and make the articles they publish immediately and freely available.
• Depositing the “author-accepted manuscript” (the version after peer review accepted by the journal) in PubMedCentral or another HHMI-designated repository under a CC BY license so that it is immediately and freely available to the public upon publication in the journal. This option applies to journals like subscription journals which do not publish the journal article (i.e., the version of record) under a CC BY license. If the journal does not deposit the author-accepted manuscript in a repository on behalf of the authors, it is the responsibility of the HHMI author(s) to ensure that the author-accepted manuscript is available under a CC BY license by the publication date….”
“Horizon Europe is expected to mandate that grant recipients publish their results according to the principles of open science.
In particular, immediate open-access publishing will become mandatory for all recipients of Horizon Europe research grants, including those from the ERC, says Kütt. Scientists will be required to post an accepted, peer-reviewed version of their papers online at a ‘trusted repository’, according to a draft of the instructions for applicants, but it is unclear at this time which repositories will be acceptable. Grants will cover publishing costs for pure open-access journals, but not for hybrid publications. Authors must also retain intellectual-property rights for their papers….”
Abstract: Discussion of the ways in which open access (OA) and academic freedom interact is fraught for a number of reasons, not least of which is the unwillingness of some participants in the discussion to acknowledge that OA might have any implications for academic freedom at all. Thus, any treatment of such implications must begin with foundational questions. Most basic among them are: first, what do we mean by ‘open access’; second, what do we mean by ‘academic freedom’? The answers to these questions are not as obvious as one might expect (or hope), but when they are answered it becomes much easier to address a third, also very important, question: in what ways might OA and academic freedom interact? With every new OA mandate imposed by a government agency, institution of higher education, or funding organization, careful analysis of this issue becomes more urgent. This article attempts to sort out some of these issues, controversies and confusions.
“[Adler] rejected the idea that taxpayer financed research should be open to the public, saying that it was in the national interest for it to be restricted to those who could pay subscription fees. “Remember — you’re talking about free online access to the world,” he said. “You are talking about making our competitive research available to foreign governments and corporations.” …
Note that we’re talking about published research, not classified research that isn’t published. Thank goodness our enemies can’t afford to pay subscriptions or visit libraries. Thank goodness harming Americans has the side-effect of harming foreigners. At least our sacrifice is not in vain. Thank goodness Americans have never benefited from scientific advances made by non-Americans. Thank goodness publishers are willing to collect subscription fees for this patriotic purpose. Thank goodness publishers are willing to shoulder the responsibility of controlling access to our research. We know that they don’t have to. They didn’t conduct this research, write it up, or fund it….”
“What are the publishing requirements of ASAP [Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s] and Plan S?
All ASAP-funded researchers will follow the basic tenets of OA publication set forth in Plan S, as follows:
Immediate free access: Peer-reviewed, author-accepted research must be made freely available immediately upon publication, without any embargo period (zero embargo).
Unrestricted reuse rights:
ASAP funded authors or their institutions must retain the copyright for their research articles unless they are published in the public domain.
Articles must be published under the Creative Commons Attribution license CC-BY 4.0, or under the CC0 license which does not require attribution, or equivalent. Both licenses permit reuse of the material without restriction….”
“As more funders implement or consider mandates, we were curious whether the data show any connection between funders’ open access policies and open access uptake….
Although both curves are broadly similar, it seems that they diverge in the detail. The number of OA policies grew faster than OA uptake around 2001 to 2017. But we have since seen a turnaround. The proportion of OA continues to increase apace, even though the numbers of policies have almost reached a steady state….
Are policies driving OA adoption?
At first glance: Yes. Clearly there is a strong overall correlation between numbers of policies and OA uptake.
However, correlation is not causation. Policies do not necessarily mandate actions. Different funders and institutions may apply different incentives to researchers. Policies take time to take effect – as we see with Plan S. And, while the longest-standing and most robust policies are likely to see highest compliance, compliance rates are highly variable.
Whatever the correlation with policy numbers, perhaps the OA market has taken on a life of its own. It continues to grow regardless of policy numbers and – in many cases – of policy strength. Anecdotally, we can say that many publishers view OA as “the direction of travel” and are increasing their OA options often in advance of mandates….
Our underlying data show repository-only articles hovering at a steady state of around 5% of annual output; with articles in gold fully OA journals driving the increase in OA uptake….”
“Question What are the rates of declared and actual sharing of clinical trial data after the medical journals’ implementation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors data sharing statement requirement?
Findings In this cross-sectional study of 487 clinical trials published in JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, 334 articles (68.6%) declared data sharing. Only 2 (0.6%) individual-participant data sets were actually deidentified and publicly available on a journal website, and among the 89 articles declaring that individual-participant data would be stored in secure repositories, data from only 17 articles were found in the respective repositories as of April 10, 2020.
Meaning These findings suggest that there is a wide gap between declared and actual sharing of clinical trial data.”
Abstract: In April 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented the Public Access Policy (PAP), which mandated that the full text of NIH-supported articles be made freely available on PubMed Central – the NIH’s repository of biomedical research. This paper uses 600,000 NIH articles and a matched comparison sample to examine how the PAP impacted researcher access to the biomedical literature and publishing patterns in biomedicine. Though some estimates allow for large citation increases after the PAP, the most credible estimates suggest that the PAP had a relatively modest effect on citations, which is consistent with most researchers having widespread access to the biomedical literature prior to the PAP, leaving little room to increase access. I also find that NIH articles are more likely to be published in traditional subscription-based journals (as opposed to ‘open access’ journals) after the PAP. This indicates that any discrimination the PAP induced, by subscription-based journals against NIH articles, was offset by other factors – possibly the decisions of editors and submission behaviour of authors.
“The C19 Rapid Review Initiative – a large-scale collaboration of organisations across the scholarly publishing industry – has agreed to mandate data deposition across the original group of journals that set up the collaboration (eLife, F1000 Research, Hindawi, PeerJ, PLOS, Royal Society, FAIRsharing, Outbreak Science Rapid PREreview, GigaScience, Life Science Alliance, Ubiquity Press, UCL, MIT Press, Cambridge University Press, BMC, RoRi and AfricArXiv). New members aim to align in due course.
The Initiative, which grew from a need to improve efficiency of peer review and publishing of crucial COVID-19 research, began in April 2020 and now involves over 20 publishers, industry experts, and scholarly communication organizations, supporting over 1,800 rapid reviewers across relevant fields. …”