4 ms·

Really all NIH and NSF grants should come with open access requirements. I would suggest that all raw data be made available no later than 1 year after initial

Really all NIH and NSF grants should come with open access requirements. I would suggest that all raw data be made available no later than 1 year after initial collection and all publications be open-access upon publishing with curated data also available upon publishing. The "1 year after initial collection" allows slower writers to get publications in the pipeline before unleashing their data to the hounds of "competing" scientists. Scientific publishing is broken. Industry and government have limited access to modern, relevant academic research. Utilizing the best science for science, management, construction and business decisions shouldn't be a daunting task that I usually chose to overcome by contacting current individuals in academics with access to publications.

mrlase 15y ago
What is really frustrating about scientific research? Working in a research lab, looking up something you've found from your research in the literature, and then not having access to the article without paying for it. $30 is way too much to be spending on an article that might not even have the content you're looking for as it might not be mentioned in the abstract. (I'm working in a virology lab with a professor at a smaller university and this can be a frequent occurrence, meaning we have to wait for the library to go and get the article for us, hindering our progress). I found out about a pretty cool project called "Total-impact". They're basically tying together metrics from a vast number of social networking/online sources into one view about a specific scientific article to understand how far this research is reaching as well as the overall impact of how many people are talking about it. You can view it at http://total-impact.org/ http://total-impact.org/, and there is a sample collection at http://total-impact.org/collection/MqAnvI http://total-impact.org/collection/MqAnvI. I'd also recommend looking at Science 2.0's FriendFeed, http://friendfeed.com/science-2-0 http://friendfeed.com/science-2-0, as it contains some pretty interesting content. I really hope that the "open science" movement gains more traction in the immediate future.
pork 15y ago
In response to your suggestion on data being made available, there are often issues of proprietary datasets that cannot be made public (for legal or ownership reasons). It is a frustrating situation, but one that is not likely to change anytime soon, so I would be happy with just the open-access publication requirement.
- Someone 15y ago
  One year can also be extremely low w.r.t. a privacy viewpoint. Even assuming that anonymization is possible, a) who would pay for it? and b) it could make it impossible to verify the research (there are a lot of 'describe one patient' papers out there)
stevenbedrick 15y ago
Depending on what you mean by open access, all NIH grants already do come with such requirements. Any publications resulting from NIH-funded research must be deposited, in full text, including figures, into PubMed Central.
- obtu 15y ago
  “no later than twelve months” means publishers can still get rewarded for rent-seeking.
  - tylerritchie 15y ago
    For papers you would just do what NIH requires, which is "upon acceptance for publication." Upon further reflection and discussion data would probably be more reasonably published in an open format no later than 1 year after the grant ended. That would allow multi-year studies a little more time to collect all of their data and write it up.
    - obtu 15y ago
      I was just commenting on the existing open access policy (edit: I noticed you opened the subthread by prescribing, sorry for derailing). Open science/sharing the data can work as a voluntary movement, it has not been captured by private interests, but I'm really interested in seeing Open Access pan out before that. The current policy, if I'm reading it right, is saying that the manuscripts must be submitted to PubMed Central, but PMC or the researcher (whoever decides to trigger it first I imagine) only has an obligation to release them after twelve months. If PubMed Central doesn't release the research instantly and the researchers aren't aware of their rights or are subjet to some pressure/contradicting (possibly illegal) agreements, there's a loophole in the policy as written.
- jofer 15y ago
  That (NIH's policy of requiring things to go into PubMed) is precisely what this bill is taking aim at.

mrlase 15y ago

What is really frustrating about scientific research? Working in a research lab, looking up something you've found from your research in the literature, and then not having access to the article without paying for it. $30 is way too much to be spending on an article that might not even have the content you're looking for as it might not be mentioned in the abstract. (I'm working in a virology lab with a professor at a smaller university and this can be a frequent occurrence, meaning we have to wait for the library to go and get the article for us, hindering our progress). I found out about a pretty cool project called "Total-impact". They're basically tying together metrics from a vast number of social networking/online sources into one view about a specific scientific article to understand how far this research is reaching as well as the overall impact of how many people are talking about it. You can view it at http://total-impact.org/ http://total-impact.org/, and there is a sample collection at http://total-impact.org/collection/MqAnvI http://total-impact.org/collection/MqAnvI. I'd also recommend looking at Science 2.0's FriendFeed, http://friendfeed.com/science-2-0 http://friendfeed.com/science-2-0, as it contains some pretty interesting content. I really hope that the "open science" movement gains more traction in the immediate future.

pork 15y ago

In response to your suggestion on data being made available, there are often issues of proprietary datasets that cannot be made public (for legal or ownership reasons). It is a frustrating situation, but one that is not likely to change anytime soon, so I would be happy with just the open-access publication requirement.

Someone 15y ago
One year can also be extremely low w.r.t. a privacy viewpoint. Even assuming that anonymization is possible, a) who would pay for it? and b) it could make it impossible to verify the research (there are a lot of 'describe one patient' papers out there)

stevenbedrick 15y ago

Depending on what you mean by open access, all NIH grants already do come with such requirements. Any publications resulting from NIH-funded research must be deposited, in full text, including figures, into PubMed Central.

obtu 15y ago
“no later than twelve months” means publishers can still get rewarded for rent-seeking.
- tylerritchie 15y ago
  For papers you would just do what NIH requires, which is "upon acceptance for publication." Upon further reflection and discussion data would probably be more reasonably published in an open format no later than 1 year after the grant ended. That would allow multi-year studies a little more time to collect all of their data and write it up.
  - obtu 15y ago
    I was just commenting on the existing open access policy (edit: I noticed you opened the subthread by prescribing, sorry for derailing). Open science/sharing the data can work as a voluntary movement, it has not been captured by private interests, but I'm really interested in seeing Open Access pan out before that. The current policy, if I'm reading it right, is saying that the manuscripts must be submitted to PubMed Central, but PMC or the researcher (whoever decides to trigger it first I imagine) only has an obligation to release them after twelve months. If PubMed Central doesn't release the research instantly and the researchers aren't aware of their rights or are subjet to some pressure/contradicting (possibly illegal) agreements, there's a loophole in the policy as written.
jofer 15y ago
That (NIH's policy of requiring things to go into PubMed) is precisely what this bill is taking aim at.