- Dirty Water: Mapping Projected Climate Change Impacts in the United States and Abroad
- Money and Methods in Cancer Research
- Report Details How Climate Change Will Spark Heat Waves, Increase the Spread of Disease, and Erode Coastal Economies
- FDA Looks to Open Up the Medicine Cabinet
- NIH Funding is Good for Your Health, and It’s Good for the Economy
- Progressive Science Values
- Climate Change Will Not Be Kind to American Water and Agriculture
- Less Philosophy, More Policy: Obama Disbands Council on Bioethics and Will Create New One
- The Digital Textbook Case
- The Worn Grooves of Disciplinary Research
- NIH By the Numbers: Challenge Grants, Stem Cell Comments, and Conflict of Interest Rules
- States Are Looking to Grow Their Biotech Sectors
Open Access Publication in Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations Bill
Journals at the MIT library.
Source: nic221via flickr
A provision in the Labor-HHS-Education bill (H.R.3043/S.1710) before the Senate today will change the NIH public access policy and require that researchers publish all peer-reviewed articles produced from research conducted with NIH funds in open access journals. The House version of the bill requires that the NIH provide access to the articles within 12 months of their appearance in refereed journals. Under the current system, the NIH simply “requests and strongly encourages” making final peer-reviewed manuscripts publicly available.
Unfortunately, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), introduced two ammendments Friday that would derail open access by placing decisions about making peer-reviewed research public in the hands of for-profit publishers, rather than in the hands of scientists. This would limit the ability of the public and other researchers to benefit from taxpayer-funded research.
Inhofe’s proposed changes to the legislation would limit access to scientific work conducted in the service of the common good in order to protect the out-dated business model of some scientific publishers. Scientific progress requires access to shared knowledge, and the new NIH rules would be a strong mandate for knowledge that empowers scientists and the public alike.
For more on the issue:
Heather Morrison explains that the NIH already underwrites publications costs; while full and immediate open access would be in the public interest, the 12-month open access policy is a reasonable compromise (Via A Blog Around the Clock).
The Scientist: the NIH is the world’s largest biomed funder, and open access is a “natural next step.”
Scientific American ran a backgrounder on the issue in January.
Comments on this article
