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.

Tags: legislation, Publishing

Comments on this article

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.