NationStates Jolt Archive

So the NIH will soon be releasing papers that were made possible by government funded research to be accessed for free online after a period of one year. There are two sides to this argument:

1 - Tax money went into funding the research, so the citizens should have unfettered access to it.

2 - Tax money was *not* used in the peer review process or the publishing in the particular journal. As such, people should not have access to such material without paying the journal for it.

Perhaps there should be an option 3? That all NIH researchers have to turn in reports (not their peer-reviewed papers) for citizen perusal?

Discuss.

So the NIH will soon be releasing papers that were made possible by government funded research to be accessed for free online after a period of one year. There are two sides to this argument:

1 - Tax money went into funding the research, so the citizens should have unfettered access to it.

2 - Tax money was *not* used in the peer review process or the publishing in the particular journal. As such, people should not have access to such material without paying the journal for it.

Perhaps there should be an option 3? That all NIH researchers have to turn in reports (not their peer-reviewed papers) for citizen perusal?

Discuss.
I'm with #1. Well, maybe not completely unfettered access, but after a year makes sense. And I don't think it will make much of a dent in the journals' profits: most scientists need to keep on top of the new research, so waiting a year wouldn't really be a good idea. Especially since it takes ages for the article to get in the journals in the first place.... so then waiting one more year would set the scientist back too far.

And I wouldn't want to see #3 go into effect: I could not imagine the backlog it would create!

I would go with 1.
I don't really think publicly funded research shouldn't appear in journals that would require that it's not freely available in the first place.
And considering that free online alternatives to printed journals are on the uprise, that shouldn't pose much of a problem.

Maybe just free for academic purposes. The public doesn't have much use for unfinished research

I'm going with number three, unfettered public access.

Maybe just free for academic purposes. The public doesn't have much use for unfinished research

The whole thing was actually brought about by citizens who wanted to research diseases that they or their family members had, but had trouble paying for the articles.

I would go with 1.
I don't really think publicly funded research shouldn't appear in journals that would require that it's not freely available in the first place.
And considering that free online alternatives to printed journals are on the uprise, that shouldn't pose much of a problem.

I hate to tell you this, but publication takes money. Peer-review takes money. Crazy thing, that.

I hate to tell you this, but publication takes money. Peer-review takes money. Crazy thing, that.Strange how PLoS (www.plos.org) and the like manage to do it for free then.

#1. If the research was primarily government funded (more than 50% probably counts, more than 75% certainly) then legally the results of research are in the public domain, and this includes any published papers. Given the nature of peer review and the revision process typically used in scientific publications, there is *no part* of the article that the journal or reviewers hold a copyright to. The author doesn't hold a copyright because it was a "work for hire", and the government doesn't hold a copyright because it can't. Ergo, public domain. There is nothing whatsoever preventing anyone from scanning and making available online copies of these articles right away, never mind a year after publication. The journals may not like it but there is nothing they can do about it. I think the NIH is being too nice in waiting for a year. It doesn't matter much to the journals, their income comes primarily from university libraries and such who will continue to subscribe anyway.

I hate to tell you this, but publication takes money. Peer-review takes money. Crazy thing, that.
Not really. Peer review is usually free or minimal in cost to the publisher. Some journals charge a review fee (under $1000.00US) of the authors to cover the expense of peer review, (which is insignificant really). Print publication costs too, but these are usually covered sufficently by advertising and subscription revenue. There may be a necessity to increase slightly subscription prices, but not much. It is the electronic publication and acess which is the problem and this is mostly because a few companies have liscensed the electronic publication rights for various journals and are trying to use them as profit centres. There are arguments favouring this approach to electronic publication, but I find them uncompelling, especially with regards to reseach which was funded by the public.

Ahhhh ... good ol' Dempublicents. It is always good to see timely and intelligent topics shining forth in the sea of "Paradise Club" and "Greatest Sweatsocks Ever" threads. Can always count on ya. Sad, though, that such threads often die within 12 posts.

Anyway, to the topic at hand. Touchy issue. I can understand the arguments on both sides and :eek: this is actually an issue upon which I am a :eek: :eek: moderate!

While the notion of absolutely free information tends to satisfy my screaming liberal hippie side, I do understand that scientists need to feed their families.

I like the idea of citizen perusal of raw data, but you know how the average citizen is ... (Paradise Club ... Greatest Sweatsocks Ever ... etc) and much of that raw data could be completely taken out of context. A case study of thermal hydrophones and their effects on the mating habits of the red-footed turtle could somehow become "Black peple are teh suck!!!11!1"

Tough one. I must think further on it.

Been listening to NPR again, eh?
It would be easy to fix this.
For government research that was paid for by the government, the government should also pay for the peer review process and publishing costs.

To maintain independence, the government should not have any say in who does the review, or how.

Then the government can hand it out. It was all done at government expense.

I would go with 1.
I don't really think publicly funded research shouldn't appear in journals that would require that it's not freely available in the first place.
And considering that free online alternatives to printed journals are on the uprise, that shouldn't pose much of a problem.
The internet has a cost as well ... unless the gov is going to cover your isp costs you still will be "paying" for it

Not really. Peer review is usually free or minimal in cost to the publisher. Some journals charge a review fee (under $1000.00US) of the authors to cover the expense of peer review, (which is insignificant really). Print publication costs too, but these are usually covered sufficently by advertising and subscription revenue. There may be a necessity to increase slightly subscription prices, but not much. It is the electronic publication and acess which is the problem and this is mostly because a few companies have liscensed the electronic publication rights for various journals and are trying to use them as profit centres. There are arguments favouring this approach to electronic publication, but I find them uncompelling, especially with regards to reseach which was funded by the public.

Question: If it were available to everyone for free on the NIH website, who the hell is going to subscribe?

I believe that what is learned there should be open to the public. I tried to look at a paper someone had written on HIV that someone had recommended to me, be couldn't. Why keep the information hidden?

I believe that what is learned there should be open to the public. I tried to look at a paper someone had written on HIV that someone had recommended to me, be couldn't. Why keep the information hidden?

Why can't you get every single book online for free?

Why can't you get every single book online for free?
Because they aren't written with public funds, perhaps?

1 - Tax money went into funding the research, so the citizens should have unfettered access to it.


I am personally for lowering copyright regulations to a non-renewable period of no more than 5 years (10 at the outside) at which point ALL information, no matter who funds it, creates it, or buys it, would belong to the public trust.

Anything created using government resources belongs to the state (read: the people), not the individual who created it. We payed for it, we provided the environment in which it was created, it is ours.

The argument could be made that the papers themselves were published outside of the state body, and in those cases I would say they belong to their perspective owners. However, this belonging should not be permanent, and I would venture that a 1 year or a 2 year period of exclusivity is more than fair, since it was based on research we already paid for.

Question: If it were available to everyone for free on the NIH website, who the hell is going to subscribe?

Not all the information in these journals will be freely available. Besides - the 1 year delay seems like a very reasonable way to deal with the cost of publishing. The govenment saves money, scientists who need the research learn about it quickly because they have subscriptions, or because their libraries do, and it doesn't really matter to the publishers after a year if the information becomes free - these journals don't make much money selling back issues since so many libraries stock the articles that after a year the information is essentially free to 99% of interested people anyway.

Not all the information in these journals will be freely available. Besides - the 1 year delay seems like a very reasonable way to deal with the cost of publishing. The govenment saves money, scientists who need the research learn about it quickly because they have subscriptions, or because their libraries do, and it doesn't really matter to the publishers after a year if the information becomes free - these journals don't make much money selling back issues since so many libraries stock the articles that after a year the information is essentially free to 99% of interested people anyway.

I was replying to those who state that the one year time period shouldn't even be there.

Because they aren't written with public funds, perhaps?

Some are.

Textbooks, for instance, contain all sorts of information paid for by public funds.

Meanwhile, journals are not paid for by public funds.

Textbooks, for instance, contain all sorts of information paid for by public funds.
Then they should also be open to the public. Though I don't know who'd want to read them...the only textbook I would want to read for enjoyment is America: the Book. There are much better ways to find the information I want than textbooks, but NIH has some really good stuff that I'd like to see. Sure, if there are reasons for a delay for something, that's fine. But I'd still like to be able to see what I pay for without having to pay further.

Then they should also be open to the public.

Wouldn't that be wonderful? College students could save $500 a semester. What a wonderful world! Of course, someone would have to pay the authors, the publishers, the copyright fees, etc, but I suppose we could just raise taxes for that.

So the NIH will soon be releasing papers that were made possible by government funded research to be accessed for free online after a period of one year. There are two sides to this argument:

1 - Tax money went into funding the research, so the citizens should have unfettered access to it.

2 - Tax money was *not* used in the peer review process or the publishing in the particular journal. As such, people should not have access to such material without paying the journal for it.

Perhaps there should be an option 3? That all NIH researchers have to turn in reports (not their peer-reviewed papers) for citizen perusal?

Discuss.

The system there is one that I don't know. However some points that may or may not be relevant.
Re argument 1. Tax money being used for something does not imply that that object/product that was funded should be in the public domain. If it did, then every tax paying US citizen would have the right to transport anywhere in the world by the military (tax money bought the aircraft, pays the pilots, even buys the fuel), or to stay in the Whitehouse, or to read any intelligence report at any time. That research is publically funded should only imply that the research results of that research belong to the state. What the state does with it, would have to be a case by case decision. (PS Excuse my being an ignoramus, but what exactly is NIH?)

Re argument 2. Peer review does not, or at least should not, cost a dime. Academics acquire status, reputation and hence better jobs in the long run by constantly adding to their curricula. One effective way of doing this is to be on the review bodies of academic journals in the appropriate fields. This means reviewing papers submitted for publication. Here (in Brazil) at least this is an unpaid, but still highly sought after activity. It does also carry the side benefit that if you are on the review body of an important journal, yyour own work tends to be more favourably reviewed by other reviewers (you scratch my back and I'll scratch your's).
If anyone wants a physical copy of the journal, then yes there are significant costs to be covered, an electronic peer reviewed journal costs almost nothing, as the review is free, the articles are already in digital form and most academic institutions have spare hosting capacity for such purposes.

Option 3. Here, government funded researchers have to submit an annual report detailing the research done, the results obtained, the work published etc. to the funding body (Federal or State) This is not peer reviewed, but does influence the decisionas to whether to continue funding that researcher or not when they submit their next research project proposal. These could be made public, but the presentation is not layman friendly to say the least.

My opinion then is that the papers should be freely available on-line to the public. Where this is appropriate to the nature of the research (hand held thermonuclear device blueprints, for example, should not be disclosed). Not because the research was publically funded but because dissemination of information is essential to the scientific method. The journals can use this as free advertising, so they too should be happy in the long run.

(PS Excuse my being an ignoramus, but what exactly is NIH?)

National Institutes of Health. They fund a great deal of medicine-related research. Just about any biology/biotechnology lab gets some NIH funds.

Re argument 2. Peer review does not, or at least should not, cost a dime.

I wasn't suggesting that peer reviewers get paid, although some types (study sections for NIH, for instance) do require quite a bit of travel expenses that should be paid for by those requesting the peer review. However, even a non-paid peer review system requires *some* money, if only for someone to keep a database of peer reviewers, check to make sure they don't know the people they are reviewing, etc.

It does also carry the side benefit that if you are on the review body of an important journal, yyour own work tends to be more favourably reviewed by other reviewers (you scratch my back and I'll scratch your's).

Maybe the system there is different, but in the US, researchers are not informed who reviewed their papers.

If anyone wants a physical copy of the journal, then yes there are significant costs to be covered, an electronic peer reviewed journal costs almost nothing, as the review is free, the articles are already in digital form and most academic institutions have spare hosting capacity for such purposes.

Academic institutions have no rights to display journal articles - as they are formatted/etc. by the journals themselves.

My opinion then is that the papers should be freely available on-line to the public. Where this is appropriate to the nature of the research (hand held thermonuclear device blueprints, for example, should not be disclosed). Not because the research was publically funded but because dissemination of information is essential to the scientific method. The journals can use this as free advertising, so they too should be happy in the long run.

If the papers are online from the start, no one will need the journals. This is like saying that Stephen King would get free advertising by putting every single one of his manuscripts online for free and allowing people to print them out, rather than going to buy a book.

its not like you cant read these articles. go to the closest university library and there they are. (well they probably need a medical school attached) or you can probably ask a doctor in the related specialty if you can read his copy.

the subscriptions to these journals are extremely expensive but access to them isnt all that hard if you are really interested (and how many of us really are?)

its not like you cant read these articles. go to the closest university library and there they are. (well they probably need a medical school attached) or you can probably ask a doctor in the related specialty if you can read his copy.

the subscriptions to these journals are extremely expensive but access to them isnt all that hard if you are really interested (and how many of us really are?)

Well, to be fair, some university libraries charge for non-student use, especially when they are specialized like medical school libraries. On top of that, there may not be a library near you with a subscription to whatever journal you are looking for.

So the NIH will soon be releasing papers that were made possible by government funded research to be accessed for free online after a period of one year. There are two sides to this argument:

1 - Tax money went into funding the research, so the citizens should have unfettered access to it.

2 - Tax money was *not* used in the peer review process or the publishing in the particular journal. As such, people should not have access to such material without paying the journal for it.

Perhaps there should be an option 3? That all NIH researchers have to turn in reports (not their peer-reviewed papers) for citizen perusal?

Discuss.

Anything we paid for we should have access to! So I'm all for #1.

Anything we paid for we should have access to! So I'm all for #1.

You didn't pay for the journal to publish the article, however, so why ignore #2?

You paid for the *research*, but not for the *article*.

this reminds me of a story a friend of my told me about her father
he worked for the red cross and people would razz him about charging for blood when people donate it for free...

he said that any time they wanted, he would give them a mason jar of blood to take to the hospital.

those journals provide an extremely important service. my husband from time to time does peer reviews and you wouldnt believe the sloppy work/writing that gets submitted. its necessary that someone review their work and make sure it is what they claim it is.

those journals provide an extremely important service. my husband from time to time does peer reviews and you wouldnt believe the sloppy work/writing that gets submitted. its necessary that someone review their work and make sure it is what they claim it is.

Does he get paid for doing these reviews? I agree they are necessary, just look at the web to see what happens without peer review systems. The question is, for me anyway, how much does peer review cost?

Does he get paid for doing these reviews? I agree they are necessary, just look at the web to see what happens without peer review systems. The question is, for me anyway, how much does peer review cost?
no he doesnt get paid. i guess he does it for the prestige.

but just like donated blood there are costs involved in the whole journal system. they are very small runs of very glossy pages. it must be acid free blah blah blah paper because libraries bind them for long term storage.

for a while the ones my husband subscribes to were available online in PDF format but they decided it was cutting into their revenues and have stopped making that available.

i really dont know if someone out there is making a fortune on medical journals. i doubt it but i dont know for sure. they probably pretty much pay their costs.

no he doesnt get paid. i guess he does it for the prestige.

but just like donated blood there are costs involved in the whole journal system. they are very small runs of very glossy pages. it must be acid free blah blah blah paper because libraries bind them for long term storage.

for a while the ones my husband subscribes to were available online in PDF format but they decided it was cutting into their revenues and have stopped making that available.

i really dont know if someone out there is making a fortune on medical journals. i doubt it but i dont know for sure. they probably pretty much pay their costs.

I was just checking if there was a difference between there and here. My wife is a university lecturer and also gets to review articles etc. For free. Book reviews end up with a couple of copies of the magazine and a copy of the book, so they are worth doing. But peer review appears to be purely status.

It is not just the medical journals, it is all academic journals that seem to get their matrerial for free, the review/proof reading for free, but still charge horrendous amounts for non institutional subscriptions. In the humanities you can be charged US$1000 for an annual subscription to a quarterly magazine. $250 per issue? Someone is making a profit here.

For institutions it appears to be more a case of, we'll send you ours if you send us yours.

I was just checking if there was a difference between there and here. My wife is a university lecturer and also gets to review articles etc. For free. Book reviews end up with a couple of copies of the magazine and a copy of the book, so they are worth doing. But peer review appears to be purely status.

It is not just the medical journals, it is all academic journals that seem to get their matrerial for free, the review/proof reading for free, but still charge horrendous amounts for non institutional subscriptions. In the humanities you can be charged US$1000 for an annual subscription to a quarterly magazine. $250 per issue? Someone is making a profit here.

For institutions it appears to be more a case of, we'll send you ours if you send us yours.

Most journals are run by societies. For instance, the Journal of Tissue Engineering is run by the Society for Tissue Engineers. These societies, in addition to putting out the journal (which does have cost, itself) also hold conferences to actually get scientists together and talking. Some host job searches or run databases for access to cell lines/antibodies/etc.

While the editors of Science and Nature may very well be pulling in huge profits, the majority of journals are not.

Most journals are run by societies. For instance, the Journal of Tissue Engineering is run by the Society for Tissue Engineers. These societies, in addition to putting out the journal (which does have cost, itself) also hold conferences to actually get scientists together and talking. Some host job searches or run databases for access to cell lines/antibodies/etc.

While the editors of Science and Nature may very well be pulling in huge profits, the majority of journals are not.

I recognise that putting out a journal does have a cost, just not at the same level that is often charged. I can not comment of the Journal of Tissue Engineering, as I am a philosopher, not a tissue engineer and as such do not know the details of that particular journal.
What I do know, however, is the academic conferences are generally held in academic institutions (universities) unless they are externally funded. The medical community, here, is notorious for holding conferences in resort hotels,funded by pharamacuetical companies, where very little actual serious academic work takes place.
In contrast ANPOF (the national association for postgraduate programs in Philosophy, changing the language messes up the acronym) holds its conferences every two years at a university. Some people go to the conference just to watch, they have to pay all their costs. Others go to present papers. These may obtain sponsorship from the Federal government, state government or their associated university. If they do not, they have to pay out of their own pocket. The post graduate programs pay an annual membership fee to ANPOF, which covers the costs of hosting the event, and of providing transport and accomodation for keynote speakers only. In this case, the proceedings are published electronically (CD-ROM) and a minimal charge is made (Cost of media + 10% generally, to cover recording costs.)

If this can be done, why do other journals, such as mind, charge so much?

What I do know, however, is the academic conferences are generally held in academic institutions (universities) unless they are externally funded. The medical community, here, is notorious for holding conferences in resort hotels,funded by pharamacuetical companies, where very little actual serious academic work takes place.

I've been to a number of biology/biotechnology conferences, and I can vouch for the fact that they keep you *very* busy.

And yes, they do use hotels. Why? Because they are generally multinational - so you have to stay somewhere, and because hotels have the space (most have numerous conference rooms these days) and catering services needed.

Meanwhile, the conference generally soaks the registration fees for the speakers and often pays for their hotel stay as well. On top of that, most of them want to encourage student participation and thus give discounts on student registration. They generally do not completely recoup expenses just through registration fees.

I've been to a number of biology/biotechnology conferences, and I can vouch for the fact that they keep you *very* busy.
I was just digging at my sister in law really. She is a Neurologist and party animal, who gets to go to lots of drug company sponsored events by selling her academic soul to them. Not all medBiochem conferences are like that.

And yes, they do use hotels. Why? Because they are generally multinational - so you have to stay somewhere, and because hotels have the space (most have numerous conference rooms these days) and catering services needed.

Most universities also have accomodation space, and much cheaper than hotels, usually. Hotels with the facilities to hold big conferences (1000 plus people) are usually expensive. Hold the conference in the university, and split the accomodation out around all the hotels usually works better (Expensive hotels for the visiting professors, youth hostels for the poor graduate student without a scholarship)

Meanwhile, the conference generally soaks the registration fees for the speakers and often pays for their hotel stay as well. On top of that, most of them want to encourage student participation and thus give discounts on student registration. They generally do not completely recoup expenses just through registration fees.

I acknowledged that the event organiser pays for the key note speakers registration fees, travel and accomodation. Sometimes even paying an "appearance fee". However, any slight shortfall does not justify the exorbitant prices of the associated journal. Simply use a cheaper set up.

I acknowledged that the event organiser pays for the key note speakers registration fees, travel and accomodation. Sometimes even paying an "appearance fee". However, any slight shortfall does not justify the exorbitant prices of the associated journal. Simply use a cheaper set up.

Not all journals cost as much as Science or Nature.

Not all journals cost as much as Science or Nature.

No, some cost up to 10 times as much. Others cost only a few bucks. The discrepency is the problem. But, all I do is not buy the expensive ones, I simply make copies of articles I need for academic use only, from the library copy.