Trump might help free science that’s locked behind paywalls

[Elderberry]

Vox By Brian Resnick and Julia Belluz 12/20/2019

Reportedly, the White House may issue an executive order on federally funded research. Publishers aren’t happy.

The Trump administration is reportedly considering issuing an executive order that would make it easier for everyone to access publicly funded research.

According to E&E News, the White House is considering mandating, via executive order, that all federally funded research be immediately available to the public upon publication. Currently, a lot of federally funded research is kept behind a paywall for one year before it becomes public. The executive order would reportedly mandate eliminating that paywall period.

It’s unclear what’s motivating the administration to issue this mandate, and the text of the potential executive order has not yet been released. At this point, it’s hard to completely evaluate its merits.

But if what’s reported is broadly true, this could be a big win for a movement known as Open Science, which has complained that for too long, taxpayer-funded research has been locked behind expensive paywalls, keeping it out of reach for the people who paid for it.

When it comes to science, the Trump administration is better known for refuting the clear scientific consensus on climate change and for walking back environmental protections. But eliminating the paywall period would actually be quite positive for the dissemination of scientific knowledge.

More: https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2019/12/19/21029902/open-access-trump

[Smokin Joe]

Great idea, imho.

[Cyber Liberty]

The upset seems to be over publishers making money for distributing the material.  I could not care less about protecting their business models, I want mo bedda rigor in the peer reviewing.  I understand the publishers are doing slipshod work in that department, for whatever reason.  If open-sourcing the work means better rigor, I'm for it too.

[Smokin Joe]

The upset seems to be over publishers making money for distributing the material.  I could not care less about protecting their business models, I want mo bedda rigor in the peer reviewing.  I understand the publishers are doing slipshod work in that department, for whatever reason.  If open-sourcing the work means better rigor, I'm for it too.

You can't read what you aren't able to afford to pay for. You can't review what you can't read. Abstracts alone don't get it, they're the teaser.

If you don't have institutional access, it can easily cost $40 or more just to read the article.

[Cyber Liberty]

You can't read what you aren't able to afford to pay for. You can't review what you can't read. Abstracts alone don't get it, they're the teaser.

If you don't have institutional access, it can easily cost $40 or more just to read the article.

Sounds like this would likely mean mo betta rigor.  It would certainly be an improvement to letting our betters who work in the institutions do peer review.

[Smokin Joe]

Sounds like this would likely mean mo betta rigor.  It would certainly be an improvement to letting our betters who work in the institutions do peer review.

While I'm all for peer review, it lets those not involved directly in the process have access to review as well. It amounts to someone guarding the guards, if you will.

There have been instances where peer review has failed miserably because of the quasi-religious mindset of the reviewers in favor of the conclusions.

Skepticism is at the heart of good science.

[roamer_1]

I am ALL FOR ~Open~ anything when it comes to information.

[EdinVA]

Organizations are only required to publish findings, not that their findings are accurate or final, so they can qualify for follow on research so many times these research papers are incomplete.That is how we ended up with reports on milk causing cancer.... be careful...

[Smokin Joe]

Organizations are only required to publish findings, not that their findings are accurate or final, so they can qualify for follow on research so many times these research papers are incomplete.That is how we ended up with reports on milk causing cancer.... be careful...

Let skeptical people examine more than preliminary findings, so the amount of weight to be given to those findings can be assessed. Whether or not the research is complete, whether the methodology is sound could be assessed.

[EdinVA]

Let skeptical people examine more than preliminary findings, so the amount of weight to be given to those findings can be assessed. Whether or not the research is complete, whether the methodology is sound could be assessed.

Well, I guess what I am concerned about is things like partial/inaccurate findings on fossil fuels and/or green energy which could make the conversation more difficult than it is now.

Could be vaccines, climate, etc..... more ammunition for the lefties.

If they are willing to impeach a president over nothing imagine what they would do with this..

[The_Reader_David]

You can't read what you aren't able to afford to pay for. You can't review what you can't read. Abstracts alone don't get it, they're the teaser.

If you don't have institutional access, it can easily cost $40 or more just to read the article.

Yes, but the people who in the first instance are supposed to review research, the referees assigned by the journal, get to read it for free.  Bizarrely, given the gobs of money publishers like Elsevier and Springer rake in, the referees are expected to donate their services and expertise to the journal.  The poor quality of peer review is thus a "you get what you pay for" phenomenon, though subscriptions to scientific journals are not.

[Smokin Joe]

Well, I guess what I am concerned about is things like partial/inaccurate findings on fossil fuels and/or green energy which could make the conversation more difficult than it is now.

Could be vaccines, climate, etc..... more ammunition for the lefties.

If they are willing to impeach a president over nothing imagine what they would do with this..

When preliminary indications from some study are being released without any qualification other than that they are preliminary results of an investigation, you don't have any evidence, just a premature conclusion.

If the study is open to review, then you can at least see if the researchers are asking the right questions and if their results will be inconclusive or definitive.
Abstracts are like headlines, and I have read studies where the research didn't support either the Abstract nor the Conclusions, often based on little more than a literature review heavily quoting other studies which, in turn, did not adequately support their conclusions.
Turning a critical eye toward research allegedly supporting gun control, motorcycle helmet laws, and many other topics will reveal a lot IF you can read the study and the ones which it quotes as references.

So either open it up, or don't release results of incomplete research, but completed research should be a full disclosure thing, so results can be repeated to test the conclusions.