Nature: Trump administration might require open-access publication of US-funded scientific results
nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03926-1Posted Dec 24, 2019, 8:18 AM UTC
7028
nature.com
Fantastic!
Publicly funded research results should be freely available by law
9
That would be absolutely insane, should everything publicly funded be disclosed?
1
Yes, absolutely.
4
Are you insane? Should research about the B2 bomber be disclosed on Wikipedia? Should locations of all military bases and all planes locations be on google maps? That would spell absolute disaster
-4
Totally different ballpark bud. We're talking about scientific research. Military research falls under a different "classification"
6
Idiot
0
Ad absurdism arguments show stupidity.
In general though, Where security etc are not in play, then yes. If the public fund the research then the public should be able to refer to it and benefit from it.
0
“I really doubt that most of those scientific and medical organizations made any attempt to poll their members about this issue,” says Steven Salzberg, a computational biologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. “They presume that they can speak for all members, but on this issue, I think they are speaking directly against the interests of their members.”
2
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 81%. (I'm a bot)
Two groups that represent publishers in the United States and around the world sent letters to the US government on 18 December opposing any policy that would mandate immediate open access.
It is not clear whether the rumoured US policy would mirror Plan S, or merely mandate that research be made free to read. But requiring a similar policy for studies funded by the United States government would "Effectively nationalize the valuable American intellectual property that we produce and force us to give it away to the rest of the world for free", the Association of American Publishers in Washington DC wrote to President Donald Trump.
Several scientists who advocate for open access say the current policy does not go far enough - and they countered the publishers' arguments against the changes the White House is said to be considering.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: publish^#1 policy^#2 fund^#3 Journal^#4 science^#5
2
So basically, Trump is going against business in this case? Whodathunkit??
2
We are considering this new policy....
(Publishers) Are you sure? I might accidentally leave this stack of money on the table if you were to forget about doing that?
We decided that this policy would not help anyone so have abandoned it
1
WTF? I love Trump now!
1
That will be awesome.
*would.
While 100% agree with the idea, I don't expect this admin to follow through with anything.
No it won't, it's just a ploy to push scientists away. They will be requiring the publication of raw data.
Scientist here, it's a great thing and something we really want. No one likes how publishing currently works, except for publishers
Lol spoken like a scientist who hasn't paid for a study. People keep the data because they want to be able to sell it, no one just hoards data. There is a reason why scientists are up in arms about this rule.
Spoken like a private scientist not an academic in a public institution
I've been a scientist, in the public sector so we were supposed to be cooperative and everything. But instead we were just hoarding data and code. It was in no way commercially interesting, so no way of selling it. The only value in hoarding it was that whoever wanted to use it would have to have one of us as a co-author.
Have paid for several. Would you like DOIs?
Bullshit. Almost all scientists support this. Even those who work in private industry. Because "their" data isn't theirs even -- it belongs to their employer.
Well they should. WE are paying for the studies, so we deserve the data.
I mean that's just not how grants work. They never fully pay for a study, when they do everything gets published. Most of the time they pay some small part of the costs of the study.
I'm of a mind that all scientific data (excluding military stuff) should be open to the public. One person can figure out most of a problem, but get stumped, but another set of eyes could finish solving the problem. Progress is only slowed by secrecy
This guts any EPA research into long term effects of certain materials are dangerous to human health. These are partially based on medical files which cannot, under law be published. So passing this guts the kind of research that you base your consumerlaw/ enviromental protection on.