5 ms·
The key language notes that the Whitehouse has "issued a memorandum today [...] to Federal agencies that directs those with more than $100 million in research a
by michael_nielsen 14y ago
The key language notes that the Whitehouse has "issued a memorandum today [...] to Federal agencies that directs those with more than $100 million in research and development expenditures to develop plans to make the results of federally-funded research publically available free of charge within 12 months after original publication."
This suggestion is similar to the NIH public access policy (adopted in 2008), which requires the results of NIH-funded research to be made freely available within 12 months of publication. The new memorandum gives agencies some freedom in how they respond - they don't need to adopt exactly the NIH policy - but it is clearly in the same spirit.
Here's an analysis from Peter Suber, a leading advocate of open access: https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts/8hzviMJeVHJ https://plus.google.com/109377556796183035206/posts/8hzviMJe...
Suber focuses on the connection to FASTR, a major piece of open access legislation introduced into Congress a few days ago. Broadly, FASTR has a lot of overlap with the White House directive. FASTR would require every Federal agency with a budget over 100 million to adopt an open access policy. A significant difference - and one that I expect is of interest to HN - is that FASTR has provisions to enable text mining. That would potentially be of interest to some startups. Much more info here:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Notes_on_the_Fair_Access_to_Science_and_Technology_Research_Act http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/Notes_on_the_Fair_Access_t...
If you'd like to support open access, take a few minutes to look at the Alliance for Taxpayer Access's (ATA) call to action on FASTR:
http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/FASTR_calltoaction.shtml http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/FASTR_calltoaction.shtm...
It is also of interest to follow the responses from John Wilbanks and Heather Joseph, two of the authors of the petition (and long-time advocates for open access):
https://twitter.com/wilbanks https://twitter.com/wilbanks
https://twitter.com/hjoseph https://twitter.com/hjoseph
Wilbanks notes that the memo covers research from "NSF, Ed, EPA, NASA, USDA, HHS, Commerce, Interior, Defense, Energy, Trans, DHS, Ag, State, Smithsonian". He also implies that while this memo is great progress, it falls short of a full open access mandate enabling reuse and text-mining of content.
- kanzure 14y agoThis is a fantastic development. What are the chances of any of this applying retroactively to papers that are already published?
- michael_nielsen 14y agoIn the case of FASTR, I don't think there's anything in there about it being retroactive. Certainly there's not for the existing NIH policy. In the case of the Whitehouse Directive, I suppose individual agencies could decide to adopt a retroactive policy. But I don't think such a policy is being prescribed.
- kanzure 14y agoThank you. The reason I ask is because many of the articles that I am currently reading or need to read are those that were published prior to the existence of FASTR, in particular recent papers published between, say, the 1920s and 2010s. In due time, these articles that are locked away will be less referenced, but in the mean time I am left scratching my head... will we just try to forget that this terrible plague ever happened to science, and re-publish as much as possible?
- bendmorris 14y ago>I suppose individual agencies could decide to adopt a retroactive policy. I don't think they could. If they've already signed a contract to fund a project, they can't just decide to change the rules. This will only count going forward.
- michaelhoffman 14y agoThe chances are zero. There is no way for the government to retroactively change the terms and conditions of contracts and grants that were executed long ago.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- Alex3917 14y agoThat's not accurate, they could grant themselves a license to the copyright under eminent domain.