Kelsey Brugger and Sean Reilly, E&E News reporters Greenwire: Tuesday, December 17, 2019
White House officials are working on an executive order that would boost public access to federally funded research, prompting publishers to panic about the future of their business models, according to people familiar with the plan.
Ostensibly, the order would follow longtime bipartisan interest in improving public access to research that is paid for by taxpayers.
It is expected to require that publicly funded science be obtainable for free immediately, building on an Obama initiative, multiple sources said.
A memo adopted in 2013 mandated that the results of such research be made available within one year of publication.
Though there is generally broad support for public access, publishing groups like the Association of American Publishers worry that a tougher order would upend their subscription-based business model.
Once it caught wind of the effort, AAP began drafting a sharply worded letter of concern to the White House, multiple sources said. The letter could be sent as early as tomorrow.
About a dozen sources told E&E News that they were aware the White House has been considering an executive order but the details remain murky. A senior administration official declined to comment on “internal deliberative processes that may or may not be happening.”
“President Trump’s Administration continues to be focused on scientific discovery and economic expansion,” the official added via email.
Michael Stebbins, who helped draft the Obama-era memo, generally expressed support for public access and noted that it could spur innovation. “But the devil is definitely in the details,” he said.
Many academic journals are funded by subscription fees collected in the first year of publication. The Trump mandate could force publishers to shift their model so authors pay hefty article processing charges, or APCs.
“Here’s the challenge: A world in which there is immediate open access will result in serious pain to a scientific society or small publisher who relies on subscription revenue,” Stebbins added. “That revenue will have to be made up somehow for them to survive.”
Some scientific experts, who are generally skeptical of the Trump team, are worried that the initiative parallels what they call the administration’s incessant attack on science and, by extension, provides favors to industry.
“What problem are we trying to solve?” asked Andrew Rosenberg, an advocate with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Others noted that the order would give international competitors like China access to American research, which has been a concern of the Trump administration.
It’s also unusual, sources noted, that a Republican administration would adopt policies that could seriously affect business models.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
““What problem are we trying to solve?” asked Andrew Rosenberg, an advocate with the Union of Concerned Scientists.”
Secret science. Where journals won’t require the scientists to release all data, methods, code, etc, for federally funded research. Even though the journals have rules that say those things ARE supposed to be available. People like Steve McIntyre shouldn’t have to beg for data and methods for research paid for by the public.
Corrupt organized crime outfits like Chrissy McEntee’s American Geophysical Union will become … extinct! [wild applause and shouts of cheer]. Ha ha
😀
The government should, perhaps, not be the funding source for research that is used for a business model.
Taxpayer paid research results and the methods used should be part of the public domain. The nominal fees are no burden for corporations or foreign agencies.
They are a nuisance to US nationals. The Chinese have already populated most basic science research groups with their nationals so the information is most likely already in Chinese hands.
The truly crazy part of this issue is that US government reports etc are not free to the public. Taxpayers do double pay for the information. They pay the civil servants at the EPA, DOD, etc and copies of reports are available for a fee.
The US federal government publishes a wealth of information free online. There are data bases you can query and papers you can read. Brandon Rhymes published the EDGAR link in a comment above. The CDC has a data base for causes of death that I routinely use to prove idiots wrong (https://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html).
If something is available online for free, I don’t mind asking the recipient to pay copying costs if they request a hard copy. No profit, just cover the actual costs.
” Others noted that the order would give international competitors like China access to American research, which has been a concern of the Trump administration. ”
The Chinese already have access through their subscriptions to the corrupt publishers.
Now these corrupt publishers will have to earn an honest buck and ensure that data is published … they rarely enforced the Obama edict to publish within a year so no boys and girls your dose of schadenfreude.
“Others noted that the order would give international competitors like China access to American research, which has been a concern of the Trump administration.”
Apparently these others firmly believe that the Chinese haven’t yet discovered Sci-hub.
““What problem are we trying to solve?” asked Andrew Rosenberg, an advocate with the Union of Concerned Scientists.”
The usual suspects weigh in. Could this have something to do with the fact that climat-science papers, in contrast to virtually all other disciplines, are rarely made available on sites like researchgate and academia.edu.
One could almost think that they are afraid that somone might try to find errors….
Is President Trump letting some sunlight shine on taxpayers funded research data under the Data Quality Act? Good for him. Now Mr. President, put some teeth in it also.
“ It’s also unusual, sources noted, that a Republican administration would adopt policies that could seriously affect business models.”
If your business model is acting as a gatekeeper who demands a toll before taxpayers are allowed to see taxpayer-funded research, your business serves no useful purpose. In economic parlance, you are a “rent seeker”.
You’re a parasite and deserve to fail.
An issue seems not to be addressed: current open access journals usually charge the Authors for publication, ok; but of course it is the authors’ institutions who pay for that. Therefore, as long as I see it, both “traditional” publishers and the “open access” ones are competing for the same source of revenues: the academic institutions and laboratories, that is (in many countries) public funds. Is the trend towards open publication just a replacement of lobbies?
In fact universities pay twice: not only by subscriptions or publication charges, but they also provide the pool of referees working to the editors for “free”.
Concerning the availability to the general public, I do not deny that it is good in principle, but who apart from specialized teams is able to check the relevance and correctness of scientific literature?
Wouldn’t it be more useful for the Feds to require the universities who receive the research funding to create agencies to perform minimum QA reviews of the research prior to publication? There is a “reproducibility crisis” after all. It doesn’t do any good to provide better access to Fed funded research if the research is junk.
Since the Feds are the primary providers of research funding, the establishment of minimum QA requirements, like passing a reproducebility test prior to publication, would go a long way to improve what has become a very flawed academic research system.
Sounds like you are trying to re-invent the peer review process.
The best QA process is open access. Let anyone who wants to review your work.
What? Strings attached to Federal Grant money? This is ‘quid pro quo’! Impeach!!
In all seriousness, it is good to see the UCS expose their true “concerns.” Every scientist knows in their heart that scientific progress should be for everybody … especially if the money that funded it (that is fed, clothed and housed the families of the scientists) came from the hard working American populace. This is because they all know that their work was only possible because their predecessors made their scientific progress available to all as well.
Taxpayers do double pay for the information. Why?
Just open the paywalls to articles more than 1 year old describing work supported by federal grants.
So, is Hans Blix available to the Association of American Publishers to begin drafting a sharply worded letter of concern ?
I hope this executive order, if it goes through, is retroactive for at least 30 years, so as to force Michael Mann and his ilk to disclose their data to the public and not be able to hide behind the courts.
Ditto!
Anything the prevents that smug prick from hiding his garbage “work” is a good thing!
Oh, and P.S. Anthony, I made an attempt at posting a comment from an i-Phone the other day and got a “forbidden”/403 error. A new kind of attack on your site?
Hang on. What?
Trump is considering “building on an OBAMA initiative”?!?!?
Why aren’t people in MAGA hats setting themselves on fire? Where are the frogs raining from the sky? Why hasn’t Sean Hannity turned into a pillar of salt?
Because not everything Obama did was wrong/bad (Just like not everything Trump does is right/good). In this case it was an initiative that, as the article points out followed on from “longtime bipartisan interest in improving public access to research that is paid for by taxpayers”. bipartisan. It’s something both sides can actually agree on (though I imagine a lot of Dems that were formally for it might now be against it just because Trump is weighing in on it, and had this come out a couple of weeks ago, would have warranted it’s own impeachment article).
John: You could not have made a more cogent statement. I commend you!
Hang on. I forgot comment-thread dialog was a thing. I didn’t prepare. So… compliments?
1) Thanks for a civil reply. I forgot what one looked like.
2) I also admire what looks to me like a thought-based series of connected sentences. Bonus: Nowhere does your line of reasoning suddenly descend into inexplicable rage; or deny observable aspects of our shared reality.
3) A viewpoint that is not your own is treated as deserving of existence.
4) You seem to be aware that people who hold those viewpoints are not (necessarily) the personification of Evil.
I don’t come to the comments often enough to know for sure if you are always such a good example of the form (IMHO) comment threads should try to emulate. (That is if the goal is to actually exchange ideas and not just compete to be the loudest echo in the chamber). But adult conversations where people with different lives disagree with me in any way that lets me test out ideas? Learn something? Figure out a step that gets us an inch closer to our shared goal, even if we have nothing else in common? (Did that EVER happen, or did I just get the Disney version of human history?) Those are the conversations worth having. What do well-adjusted people get out of YES men? It’s baffling. It’s the death of learning. It’s boring. You are quickly old and irrelevant. Needy.
Anyway, I’m gonna assume rational is your normal mode, say thanks, and quit while I’m wherever I am.
Wait. I forgot: You didn’t mention it, but this is the head-slapper for me: Almost always, if I comment, I put a fair amount of thought into it. It’s usually constructive criticism. So I usually put in my two cents, don my firefighter PPE, and toast marshmallows in the flames that follow.
So, of course, I get a reply that gives my comment way more thought than it deserves the ONE time I feel lazy and hop on an opportunity to make cheap jokes (that are also fair) about the undeniable logical inconsistency that a portion of the population displays when the subject is Trump vs. when it is He Who Shall Not Be Named. Not Voldemort. The Black guy. Born in Kenya? Has horns? Sacrifices Bald Eagles when he’s praying for gun owners to get herpes? You know…
Seriously though… since you know what’s what on this blog FAR more than I do, and its possible you might still be reading this, I have to ask a question I don’t know how to get answered.
Does there already exist–or has there ever been a suggestion to create– some type of forum on this site where people can occasionally talk shop and not be connected to any particular post? Say, where moderation of any sort isn’t required, making it effort-neutral. Because the rate of survival in a hurt feeling disaster is actually close to 100%; and loud-mouth dum-dums who will never be useful can be ignored (or smooched in the posterior swimsuit area… personal choice).
Is that a dumb idea? Is there a suggestion box? Thanks again, John Endicott, if you read this far.
Happy Festivus!
Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem was Obama’s promise.
Trump implemented the promise.
Thanks. I honestly didn’t know that was what was being referred to. I just saw something that said Trump was doing anything other than “having a negative reaction to” something Obama was connected with.
And I lost my mind. The thing itself didn’t matter.
I come here to stay current on anything science, or science-adjacent, that advances the cause of ending the global delusion of CAGW. I try to tune out all the other crap.
Occasionally it’s fun to throw in a reminder that there are skeptics of ALL description, and CAGW alarmists who AREN’t the Prince of Darkness* .
I know it doesn’t do any good. But… Okay, I’m not enough of a military scholar to know the actual term for it; but are you familiar with the tactic of doing a couple of small, sacrificial attacks on the enemy, just to get a sense of his capabilities before you go all in?
Whatever that’s called, that’s always at least a small aspect of posting here. Except it’s my own “side” rather than an enemy, technically.
Anyway, take it easy, niceguy!
______________________________________________
* The only common alternate name for the Devil that doesn’t actually appear in scripture. Who knew?