Public Access of Government-funded Studies (Hares Go Elsewhere)
This memo by the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy proves how there is nothing noble that won't escape the clutches of corporate interests.
The program sounds so beautiful as it speaks of the public getting access to published studies that were funded by government agencies. However, read it and weep, John Q.
The memo makes several specifications that are clearly lobbied by scientific publishing houses that stand to lose millions--if not go bankrupt--as a result of these measures. Measures, I might add that came about as a result of their greed in charging an arm and a leg for access.
First, there is to be a 12 month embargo on access (in other words, we can have access to year old publications). Secondly, drafts of scientific papers can not be accessed (this one I lobbied for and will continue to do so). These two could not have been written into the memo any better if they had come directly from the desk of the publishers of Nature or Science.
Third, there is a sneaky provision that asks all researchers to come up with a data management plan OR explain why long term preservation and access cannot be justified. Fourthly, the agencies implementing features of this memo should "provide for the assessment of long-term needs for the preservation of scientific data." What is there to assess? There will always be a need to access a paper no matter how old--just ask any science or math major if they want access to be cut off after a certain year. These are clearly ways for public to continue to be at the mercy of the publishers. "Oh, the government no longer has that paper? Well, step right into my pasture, cash cow, I've got it."
Lastly, although there is a mechanism whereby the embargo period can be changed, my guess is that the intent is upwards rather than downwards.
As far as this activist is concerned, there is absolutely no reason why the draft paper could not be made immediately available after the researcher finished typing it and sent it out for peer-review. I have no need for peer review, BTW. This is why: if I'm following or know of the work of a particular researcher, I know he/she will continue to produce quality studies. The work of first-time researchers, I will take with a grain of salt. But consider this too, what happens if the paper is not accepted for one reason or another? In that case, it will never see the light of day yet it may be important/interesting to someone, somewhere. The public reading a draft is not made up of morons--morons do not read scientific papers. My point is that they know how to vet a paper and, at the very least, can wait for the peer-reviewed copy to "hit the stands." Yes, I have no problem with going ahead with any plan implemented by the government agencies as long as I can have immediate access to the draft. The publishers, in their heart of hearts, know that the service they provide, although beneficial, is not a deal breaker when it comes to dissemination of scientific papers. People will learn soon enough who can be trusted; and, there could even be implemented a science social network wherein scientists and other readers can comment on studies--a kind of impromptu peer review. The network can also maintain stats on the researcher. For instance, how often has he/she been referenced in peer-reviewed journals. The higher the number, the more trustworthy. It could be updated with a flag, "published in Peer Reviewed Journal." Peer review, incidentally, doesn't have an absolute claim on trustworthiness as past and recent fraud charges will attest. Scientists are very political people--who isn't--but when they review, are they told the name of the researcher and the institution. I think they are and it begs the question, why? Do reputations precede and to what effect?
I hope that Mr. John P. Holdren comes to his senses and allows for the publishing of drafts. Not to do so, imho, violates the principle that "these policies will accelerate scientific breakthroughs and innovation, promote entrepreneurship, and enhance economic growth and job creation" for what is better to get it now or to have to wait 12 months? The key word, Mr. Holdren, is "accelerate." Please practice what you preach.
The program sounds so beautiful as it speaks of the public getting access to published studies that were funded by government agencies. However, read it and weep, John Q.
The memo makes several specifications that are clearly lobbied by scientific publishing houses that stand to lose millions--if not go bankrupt--as a result of these measures. Measures, I might add that came about as a result of their greed in charging an arm and a leg for access.
First, there is to be a 12 month embargo on access (in other words, we can have access to year old publications). Secondly, drafts of scientific papers can not be accessed (this one I lobbied for and will continue to do so). These two could not have been written into the memo any better if they had come directly from the desk of the publishers of Nature or Science.
Third, there is a sneaky provision that asks all researchers to come up with a data management plan OR explain why long term preservation and access cannot be justified. Fourthly, the agencies implementing features of this memo should "provide for the assessment of long-term needs for the preservation of scientific data." What is there to assess? There will always be a need to access a paper no matter how old--just ask any science or math major if they want access to be cut off after a certain year. These are clearly ways for public to continue to be at the mercy of the publishers. "Oh, the government no longer has that paper? Well, step right into my pasture, cash cow, I've got it."
Lastly, although there is a mechanism whereby the embargo period can be changed, my guess is that the intent is upwards rather than downwards.
As far as this activist is concerned, there is absolutely no reason why the draft paper could not be made immediately available after the researcher finished typing it and sent it out for peer-review. I have no need for peer review, BTW. This is why: if I'm following or know of the work of a particular researcher, I know he/she will continue to produce quality studies. The work of first-time researchers, I will take with a grain of salt. But consider this too, what happens if the paper is not accepted for one reason or another? In that case, it will never see the light of day yet it may be important/interesting to someone, somewhere. The public reading a draft is not made up of morons--morons do not read scientific papers. My point is that they know how to vet a paper and, at the very least, can wait for the peer-reviewed copy to "hit the stands." Yes, I have no problem with going ahead with any plan implemented by the government agencies as long as I can have immediate access to the draft. The publishers, in their heart of hearts, know that the service they provide, although beneficial, is not a deal breaker when it comes to dissemination of scientific papers. People will learn soon enough who can be trusted; and, there could even be implemented a science social network wherein scientists and other readers can comment on studies--a kind of impromptu peer review. The network can also maintain stats on the researcher. For instance, how often has he/she been referenced in peer-reviewed journals. The higher the number, the more trustworthy. It could be updated with a flag, "published in Peer Reviewed Journal." Peer review, incidentally, doesn't have an absolute claim on trustworthiness as past and recent fraud charges will attest. Scientists are very political people--who isn't--but when they review, are they told the name of the researcher and the institution. I think they are and it begs the question, why? Do reputations precede and to what effect?
I hope that Mr. John P. Holdren comes to his senses and allows for the publishing of drafts. Not to do so, imho, violates the principle that "these policies will accelerate scientific breakthroughs and innovation, promote entrepreneurship, and enhance economic growth and job creation" for what is better to get it now or to have to wait 12 months? The key word, Mr. Holdren, is "accelerate." Please practice what you preach.
Comments
Post a Comment