3 ms·
In 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 th
by michael_nielsen 14y ago
In 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.