As many WUWT readers are aware, I have often complained about the issues surrounding access to research papers, especially when they are accompanied by a broad press release campaign but there is no access given to the scientific paper itself. One of the worst recent examples of this was the Kaufman et al paper, which in the press release from the University of Colorado, contained a serious error, saying “…the cooling trend reversed in the mid-1990s.” when it should have said “the cooling trend reversed in the 20th century.”. Having no access to the science paper connected to the press release, it led me to write an article refuting the mid 1990’s claim. After many WUWT readers pointed out that the press release might very well be wrong, and at my prodding of the CU press office, the press release error has since been corrected by the University of Colorado, they never caught it themselves. But, the issue remains: why are journalists expected to use press releases but are not given open access to the papers themselves? From my perspective, this is simply wrong. Many others think the same, and a groundswell is developing.
Via Eurekalert: 57 college presidents declare support for public access to publicly funded research in the US
Washington, DC – The Presidents of 57 liberal arts colleges in the U.S., representing 22 states, have declared their support for the Federal Research Public Access Act (S. 1373) in an Open Letter released today. The letter is the first from higher education administrators to be issued in support of the 2009 bill, and further reinforcement that support for the Act exists at the highest levels of the higher education community. The presidents’ letter notes, “Adoption of the Federal Research Public Access Act will democratize access to research information funded by tax dollars. It will benefit of education, research, and the general public.”
The Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), introduced in June by Senators Lieberman (I-CT) and Cornyn (R-TX), is a bi-partisan measure to ensure online public access to the published results of research funded through eleven U.S. agencies. The bill would require that journal articles stemming from publicly funded research be made available in an online repository no later than six months after publication.
The full text of the letter reads:
Open letter from liberal arts college presidents supporting the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009
As liberal arts college presidents, we are writing to express our strong support for S. 1373, the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009, which has been introduced into the U.S. Senate by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and John Cornyn (R-TX). This bill would require federal agencies whose external research budgets exceed $100 million to develop policies that would ensure public access via the Internet to their funded research.
Liberal arts colleges are important components of our nationʼs scientific and scholarly productivity. Studies have shown that our institutions are highly effective in producing graduates who go on to obtain Ph.D. degrees and become productive researchers. Our faculty actively pursue research, much of it with government funding, and often working in partnership with talented undergraduates. Unfortunately, access to research information paid for with tax dollars is severely limited at our institutions – and indeed at most universities. Academic libraries simply cannot afford ready access to most of the research literature that their faculty and students need.
The Federal Research Public Access Act would be a major step forward in ensuring equitable online access to research literature that is paid for by taxpayers. The federal government funds over $60 billion in research annually. Research supported by the National Institutes of Health, which accounts for approximately one-third of federally funded research, produces an estimated 80,000 peer-reviewed journal articles each year.
Given the scope of research literature that would become available online, it is clear that adoption of the bill would have significant benefits for the progress of science and the advancement of knowledge.
S. 1373 would build on a number of established public access policies that have been adopted by government agencies in both the U.S. and abroad.
The National Institutes of Health has implemented a very successful comprehensive public access policy, as required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007. All seven of the Research Councils in the United Kingdom have public access policies as do the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The bill is also consistent with the growing number of institutional open access policies that have been adopted at universities such as Harvard, MIT, and the University of Kansas.
We are supportive of the Federal Research Public Access Act because it has been crafted in a way that provides ample protection for the system of peer review. It allows for a window of up to six months before final peer-reviewed manuscripts resulting from publicly funded research are made openly accessible on the Internet. In addition, it leaves control of the final published version of articles, which is generally used for citation purposes, in the hands of publishers.
Adoption of the Federal Research Public Access Act will democratize access to research information funded by tax dollars. It will benefit education, research, and the general public. We urge the higher education community, American taxpayers, and members of Congress to support its passage into law.
[end letter text]
The letter, available at http://www.oberlingroup.org/open-letter-federal-research-public-access-act, was organized through the library directors of the Oberlin Group, a consortium of 80 liberal arts college libraries nationwide.
The Federal Research Public Access Act proposes to build upon the success of the first U.S. requirement for public access to publicly funded research (through the National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy) and is supported by: 90 research, advocacy, publishing, and student organizations that represent the Alliance for Taxpayer Access; the Academic Council of the University of California System; NetCoalition.com (representing Amazon.com, Ask.com, Bloomberg, eBay, Google, Yahoo!, and Wikipedia, as well as state and local ISPs); the Rockefeller University Press; OXFAM; and major national and regional research organizations. For details, visit http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/frpaa.
GET INVOLVED:
The Alliance for Taxpayer Access calls on organizations and individuals to write in support of the bill through the Web site at http://www.taxpayeraccess.org.
For more information about the Federal Research Public Access Act, visit http://www.taxpayeraccess.org.
The Alliance for Taxpayer Access is a coalition of advocacy, academic, research, and publishing organizations that supports open public access to the results of federally funded research. The Alliance was formed in 2004 to urge that peer-reviewed articles stemming from taxpayer-funded research become fully accessible and available online at no extra cost to the American public. Details on the ATA may be found at http://www.taxpayeraccess.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is a typical email I send to various political organizations, Congress, etc.
Currently the government funds via grants, and other means, research projects regarding the climate and climate change. Most often the results from that research result in a generic press release (propaganda). However, access to published papers resulting from that research are not accessible by the public unless they are willing to pay a fee. It is unfair for the public to pay for the research and then not have access to the data and findings.
I propose legislation requiring that anyone receiving government funding for research be required as a condition of that funding to make the details of the resultant study freely available to the public. Further, any research study being considered as a basis for any legislation and policy must have been openly accessible and freely accessible by the public inclusive of methodology, data sets used, code employed, and data discounted. If those conditions are not complied with in full then that research is not able to be publicly funded and / or used as a guide for policy or legislation.
Most often those involved will claim ‘intellectual property’ regarding their research. I don’t have a problem with that IF they fund the research themselves. If they use public funds then the property rights belong to the public.
Sincere Regards,
Lee Kington
The Society of Exploration Geophysicists (SEG) and American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) have each been publishing two magazines/journals for quite some time.
Each society has a very technical publication, SEG Geophysics and AAPG Bulletin… I haven’t been able to comprehend any of the articles in Geophysics for a long time (Dif Eq is too distant of a memory) and I opted to stop receiving the hard-copy version. The AAPG Bulletin is more readable… But I still rarely read it. These journals have very few advertisements. I seriously doubt that free public Internet access to the articles would diminish membership in the societies and no one subscribes to these journals unless they are members of the societies.
They each also have more readable magazines with lots of advertisements… The AAPG Explorer and the SEG Leading Edge. The technical articles are less technical and more colorful. Again, I doubt that AAPG/SEG membership would plummet if the lay-public had free access to the articles and research papers.
The Lieberman/Cornyn bill will make it a lot easier for the public to evaluate the science rather than relying on the mainstream media’s misreporting of it… And it will make it a lot easier for scientists to see what’s going on in other disciplines.
“I work in a University. In the UK I am not considered a public servant.”
He’s also not a U.S. citizen. He should get his grant money from the UK.
It seems now that the test of whether or not a US citizen can get info about a study paid for by the US has to do with the nationality of the grantees.
Who needs journals? Quite right – lets do science by blogging, the fast-track to reality! Actually, why do we need to train scientists in the first place? Seems to me that we have a better grip on what is going on than all those ivory-towerists. After 20 yrs I no longer feel inadequate – go for it!!!
Problem is that six months down the road may be too late; the paper has already been accepted at press-release level!
DaveE.
Thank you Mr. Kingston.
I hope I have your permission to use your sample letter to send to my congressional
members. It was very succinct and simple. Most of them may even understand it!
Steve
In days gone by, papers were submited for peer review and only after scrutiny were they published.
These days we have a massive outpouring of taxpayer funded research to numerous journals that may or may not apply vigorous standards.
This would not be a problem if such papers were not used to shape public policy.
However abstracts are now used by media outlets to indicate some kind of definitive evidence of sound research regarding any agenda that suites the tabloids political wheelbarrow. All too often after the headline has long been digested by the public these papers prove to be nefarious promotions of the researchers own scientific prejudices.
Even if we discount circular endorsement by the reviewers own self interest in reinforcing work they may be doing themselves, the workload is none the less beyond any sound assessment by reviewers.
Hidding publicly funded work behind pay walls should automatically dismissed it as tabloid science and not worthy of consideration. This should not lead to a drop off of readership as documented research would encourage students to do a more comprehensive study of the subject at hand.
We cannot expect reviewers to make in-depth studies and maybe put their names to the outcome without some kind of compensation.
Research Journals are most often part of a professional association, usually a non-profit. So what do they do with the money they collect? Association members have a really good time in Cancun talking about their favorite drink while taking a bit of time here and there to talk about their science projects. Afterall, can’t be showing a profit.
So here is my take. Professional associations should be for profit. And let the market determine who wins members. If they so wish, due the hell out of the members and go to Cancun every year. Sell products. Whatever. That has nothing to do with publicly funded research. If a scientist wants to publish a publicly funded research result, it should be done on the web as a department of whatever governmental department funded the research, even if all they got was a dime. If they want to turn down the government offer of public money, then by all means, put it in your professional association’s journal and hide it behind a paywall.
Let the market win.
I would like to coin a term and take all the credit, of course.
“Carbonphobia” – An irrational fear that carbon or carbon dioxide is harming the natural environment despite the fact that life itself would be impossible, without that same carbon dioxide.
Copywrite Sept 23, 2009 by WestHoustonGeo (which is just as valid a DBA as “Rip Torn” – or better, I think.);-)
‘Carbophobia’ would be easier to say.
‘Copywrite’ would get crumpled up and thrown in the trash. What you want is ‘copyright’.
/Mr Lynn
steven mosher (11:59:04) :
The scientists in Hungary could not disagree with you more.
The dissemination of knowledge, findings, data etc. is what guarantees it’s survival. Many plates, prints, papers held in singular places have proven not to have survived the decades and centuries.
Rhys Jaggar (09:25:20) :
But even then, libraries try and stop members of the public gaining access. I tried a few years ago to gain reading rights at the UK’s National Library in London. The officials required you to state your purpose, as if ‘as a taxpayer, I wish to take advantage of an institution funded by my contributions and what I intend to do with that is none of your business’ were not an acceptable answer.
I could not agree more. It’s as if you bought a car, and you were forced to explain where you would drive it, and how fast, or maybe bought MS Office and were forced to explain what you wanted to write.
Our money, our goods, to do with as we wish.
Except computers? Dell insist on being told what you intend using a computer you buy from them for! (At least Dell in Oz.) I once selected “genetic research” in a ‘It has bugger all to do with you’ frame of mind, and my purchase was held up while they interrogated me about it! I have no idea why they do this, or even if the can, by law.
Open science is the best science …
But, the issue remains: why are journalists expected to use press releases but are not given open access to the papers themselves?
Of course they have access, all they have to do is get off their butts and go to the library!
“”” Tamara (10:25:58) :
I wonder of this kind of openness might result in a backlash against public funding of research. I know that the more publicly funded artwork I see, the more disgruntled I feel about the National Endowment for the Arts. “””
Tamara, I see nothing wrong with public funding of either science or the arts.
But taxpayer funding of either of those things is a different matter.
The NEA and PBS have simply become political front groups; and whichever politics they are pushing is irrelevent; it is still a misuse of taxpayer funds; as is taxpayer funding of things like stem cell research (any kind).
If there was any likelihood of medical benefits from such research, the drug and bio-tech companies would be funding it.
If these companies want to take taxpayer money to fund research; then the taxpayers should be the beneficiaries of the results of that research; yet too often, Universities, and supposedly independent companies end up filing patents on the results of their research. Don’t have a problem with the patent filing; but those who paid the tab for the research should have the rights to those patents.
The company that I work for which is now a public company, pays me for my work, and also pays the costs of publishing my results when appropriate in peer reviewed publications like those put out by the US Patent Office.; and in that case the benefit of those patents if any goes to those that paid for the work.
And the US patent office will only process my work through their system under the conditiona that any and all will have access to it and be instructed as to how to use it. Of course they are prohibited from making commercial use of it without paying royalties, or making other mutual arrangem,ents with those who paid for the research; namely my company’s shareholders.
Institutions make use of the publicity and prestige that comes with the output of their taxpayer funded research to campaign for more of the same; the taxpayers ought to at least have the results available to them.
Mildwarmer (15:24:09) wrote: “Who needs journals? Quite right – lets do science by blogging, the fast-track to reality!”
You will enjoy How to Publish a Scientific Comment in 1 2 3 Easy Steps by Prof. Rick Trebino at Ga Tech:
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scribd.com%2Fdoc%2F18773744%2FHow-to-Publish-a-Scientific-Comment-in-1-2-3-Easy-Steps
“To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers, may at first sight, appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers, but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers. ”
-Adam Smith-
Here’s a real beat funding proposal from a blog that sneers at “people like C.A. bloggers who are blind to settled science”. This was actually printed in seriousness. I shall not dignify it by naming it.
Keep it handy for buzz words:
“Barry, you should quit ignoring Nuclear Fusion, not the International Megabucks Boondoggle of ITER, but the potential Black Swans, like Robert Bussard’s Inertial Electrostatic Confinement Fusion, Plasma Focus Fusion, Tri-Alpha Energy’s Aneutronic Colliding Beam Fusion, Spherical Plasma Fusion, General Fusion’s shockwave Fusion. Also Blacklight Power (which I admit maybe bogus) & Jovion Zero Point Energy and Cold Fusion is also showing promise. There is also a possibility for anti-matter catalyzed fusion, one method is using positron storage, which Positronics is developing. Logic dictates, that funding should be prioritized to the ratio of (potential economic & environmental benefit / cost of development) X probability of success. By that criteria many of these exotic technologies deserve funding, certainly in the 100’s of million dollar range, unlike the few millions that they struggle with. Many of these technologies have the potential to blow away all other forms of energy production – precipating a true social & economic revolution across the entire planet. Certainly we should not gamble our resources on any one technology, but all technologies that have potential to be major green energy sources should be investigated until their potential is thoroughly understood. While ridiculous scams with no hope of acheiving anything but sucking taxpayers pockets dry are being pumped with 100’s of billions in funding. This includes Hydrogen, Clean Coal, Agrofuels, Solar & Wind Energy.”
Pamela Gray (17:26:38) :
Re public and Government funding.
Maybe it helps to keep at the back of the mind that the initial purpose was, and the present main function of Government should be, to do those things which are more efficiently done by the collective than by the individual. Like national defence, international treaties, diplomacy and the like. Governments have zero place in support of the arts. The greatest flowering of the arts in periods of history have been through private patronage at times when there was a large difference between rich and poor.
With future energy, the best function of Government would be to butt out and let the free market mechanism work. No more stupid subsidies for uneconomic proposals. No more vacuous taxes. No cave-ins to the votes of special interest groups. No more decisions made by people with no experience in the subject.
Here is Australia, our couple of hundred federal politicians are mainly union leaders, school teachers, former political aides, lawyers and an ex diplomatic service Prime Minister. We have one engineer and one accoutant and one Ph.D., IIRC.
My sister is a scientist at EPA and related a story of going to a town hall meeting where local citizens were up in arms about PCBs in their water supply. Someone had gotten the raw data and pointed to several samples in the data set that showed very elevated levels of PCBs. They were quite upset. She pointed out to them that all the PCB laden samples in the data set were test slugs used to ensure that the testing equipment was working properly but were not samples of the drinking water from that area. An excellent example of how analysis of raw data by those not qualified to do so can lead to false conclusions.
I’m not arguing against unfettered access to publicly funded data. Just that its analysis and interpretation should be conducted by those with the knowledge and expertise necessary to derive reliable results. Such analysis should be subject to review to avoid alarmist and errant conclusions as outlined above.
“Barry, you should quit ignoring Nuclear Fusion, not the International Megabucks Boondoggle of ITER, but the potential Black Swans, like … Cold Fusion…. Logic dictates, that funding should be prioritized to the ratio of (potential economic & environmental benefit / cost of development) X probability of success. By that criteria many of these exotic technologies deserve funding,”
I agree. Longshots deserve funding–especially when they’re our only hope.
The data and reports we paid for should be available to us.
I think the restraint should be on the person that got the grant.
Anything submitted for publication, and all the data behind it,
should be submitted to the online archive, before any submission
for publication, or any press release or other publicity.
It stays locked in the archive until 6 months, or whatever, after
the publication or press release. Failure to comply is a crime,
with fines or jail time, and no grants for several years.
Information superhighway NOT!