6 ms·

NSF announces plan for comprehensive public access to research results

290 points by basilgohar 12y ago

basilgohar 12y ago
I just saw this announced at work and it was just too good not to share. It's my first submission.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Keep them coming!
  - basilgohar 12y ago
    Thanks. I was pleasantly surprised that I was the first to note it. I figured it was appropriate for our community, but I got nervous when there was little uptake at first. Thankfully, after a few hours, it was on the front page, which restored my confidence. I'll keep an eye out for more useful stuff. Incidentally, I realized that my GP statement might make people think I work at the NSF, and I don't. I work at Ohio Supercomputer Center and this was announced to us via an internal mailing list.
jostmey 12y ago
About time!
- wlamont 12y ago
  Agreed. The tax paying public now gets to share in the scientific results it has paid for.
charliefg 12y ago
That's good news. I'm hearing more and more good things for open access to journals and research. Now a country's governmental organisation is opening it's doors. Let the information flow!
jph 12y ago
What is most exciting about this announcement, to me, is that it provides the starting point for researchers to publish data and code. I frequently hear scientists say that they would like to publish their data sets and source code, but don't know how to do it, or don't have a public place to put it. This NSF announcement streamlines solutions for these items.
- dtlawhon 12y ago
  I wonder if this presents an opportunity for someone to set up an app just for this? Like GitHub but for publishing scientific data and code.
  - semaphoreP 12y ago
    In astronomy, we have the Astrophysics Source Code Library[1] at least for the code part. [1] http://ascl.net/ http://ascl.net/
    - dtlawhon 12y ago
      I'm running some astrophysics code from that resource now. This is awesome. B) Thanks for the heads up!
  - Joe8Bit 12y ago
    Figshare[0] has already gotten quite a lot of traction in this space. Full disclosure was started by a friend, but people say very good things. [0] https://figshare.com https://figshare.com
    - dtlawhon 12y ago
      Thanks for the heads up!
  - afandian 12y ago
    DataCite.org is the DOI Registration Agency for data sets. Lots of people use it to store, make available and make citable data sets and (AFAIK), code. FigShare.com is a DataCite member that has a nice interface for uploading and giving DOIs to research content.
fluidcruft 12y ago
Is this essentially the NIH policy, now also applied to the NSF? If so this is great news! (Actually, I didn't realize the NSF wasn't on board with this already)
batbomb 12y ago
This is nice gesture, but in my experience, especially for medium/large experiments, it almost definitely won't be applicable to analysis software, private datasets/raw data/metadata, and more specifically middleware. It doesn't really help with reproducible results in the cases which might be most interesting. For medium to big data experiments, most source code is often useless without the (often custom or proprietary) middleware used for processing the data. For very large experiments, there is likely no canonical dataset and all "datasets" are actually generated on-demand (at least those might be covered under this). For software, and especially middleware, some universities will be very reluctant to give that up, especially because many times the majority of the software/middleware isn't actually funded through the NSF, but maybe through a computing division, foreign institution, or international collaboration, for example. At the very least, they'll likely want to assert a restrictive copyright on the license and likely even attempt to patent some of the methods (a la Google). Researchers themselves may be reluctant to give up code: Some (maybe most?) universities have profit sharing too. At the very least, however, it is a policy researchers can point to.
- hackuser 12y ago
  If someone has read the actual report, what is the plan for data? Neither the linked press release nor the homepage of the plan[1] say that data will be shared; they only mention papers. [1] https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/public_access/ https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/public_access/
- sigmar 12y ago
  By "research results," I take it that they are referring to the resulting paper, not the resulting data.
- lordnacho 12y ago
  I always wondered when reading papers how anybody could reproduce the conclusions (p-values, that sort) from the data. One simple solution would be every time you have some data analysis, you set up a VM or Docker type thing with your dataset and your code. That way other people can download it and run it, see your results, and tinker.
paulsutter 12y ago
Buggywhips. This plan is for articles to be widely available like two years after being written. One year after publication [1], which can be a year after the article is written [2]. Imagine a blogging platform that took two years between pressing "publish" and the article appearing online. It sounds like a Kafkaesque nightmare, but here it is, hailed as a breakthrough. The scientific community is as much to blame as the publishers. [1] "NSF will require that articles ... be available for download ... within one year of publication." (linked article) [2] http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-duration-of-peer-reviews-for-various-disciplines http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-duration-of-peer-reviews-fo... EDIT: The tepid reaction surprises me. We are on the verge of big advances in artificial intelligence, anti-aging, space travel, and we direly need new energy sources. Yet people are pleased with a two year delay disseminating the most important research? The heartbeat of progress is the time it takes to disseminate information. The status quo is absurd and we should be angry about it.
- rtpg 12y ago
  it's not like most research papers are out of date after a year. This is progress, albeit slow.
- basilgohar 12y ago
  As opposed to the current state of things, where there is basically no requirement to publish freely whatsoever?
- wsxcde 12y ago
  > Yet people are pleased with a two year delay disseminating the most important research? The heartbeat of progress is the time it takes to disseminate information. This is a bit of a strawman, don't you think? Researchers, the vast majority of whom are located in corporate R&D labs and universities, already have the subscriptions to big digital libraries so they can download papers as soon as they are published. The move towards open access mostly affects practising engineers outside this environment, and I think a delay of a year or two is acceptable in this scenario.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
legel 12y ago
problem solved: arxiv.org
- afandian 12y ago
  Problem not solved. This is primarily policy problem, not a technical one. See also: http://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2015/03/03/the-reckoning-an-analysis-of-wellcome-trust-open-access-spend-2013-14/ http://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2015/03/03/the-reckoning-an-analy...
ebauch 12y ago
As founder of openrev.org, a platform to share and discuss research papers openly (or privately), I am very pleased with this announcement. It is more than just baby steps towards an open, scientific communication system. In physics we do already have that with the arxiv.org (though there are no public discussions) but it works darn well in my sub-field and others. We cannot wait for most other disciplines to have an epiphany. So grant agencies forcing publishers AND authors to open access their material will bring us a huge step forward towards solving the most challenging problems of our time.

290 points by basilgohar 12y ago

basilgohar 12y ago

I just saw this announced at work and it was just too good not to share. It's my first submission.

jacquesm 12y ago
Keep them coming!
- basilgohar 12y ago
  Thanks. I was pleasantly surprised that I was the first to note it. I figured it was appropriate for our community, but I got nervous when there was little uptake at first. Thankfully, after a few hours, it was on the front page, which restored my confidence. I'll keep an eye out for more useful stuff. Incidentally, I realized that my GP statement might make people think I work at the NSF, and I don't. I work at Ohio Supercomputer Center and this was announced to us via an internal mailing list.

jostmey 12y ago

About time!

wlamont 12y ago
Agreed. The tax paying public now gets to share in the scientific results it has paid for.

charliefg 12y ago

That's good news. I'm hearing more and more good things for open access to journals and research. Now a country's governmental organisation is opening it's doors. Let the information flow!

jph 12y ago

What is most exciting about this announcement, to me, is that it provides the starting point for researchers to publish data and code. I frequently hear scientists say that they would like to publish their data sets and source code, but don't know how to do it, or don't have a public place to put it. This NSF announcement streamlines solutions for these items.

dtlawhon 12y ago
I wonder if this presents an opportunity for someone to set up an app just for this? Like GitHub but for publishing scientific data and code.
- semaphoreP 12y ago
  In astronomy, we have the Astrophysics Source Code Library[1] at least for the code part. [1] http://ascl.net/ http://ascl.net/
  - dtlawhon 12y ago
    I'm running some astrophysics code from that resource now. This is awesome. B) Thanks for the heads up!
- Joe8Bit 12y ago
  Figshare[0] has already gotten quite a lot of traction in this space. Full disclosure was started by a friend, but people say very good things. [0] https://figshare.com https://figshare.com
  - dtlawhon 12y ago
    Thanks for the heads up!
- afandian 12y ago
  DataCite.org is the DOI Registration Agency for data sets. Lots of people use it to store, make available and make citable data sets and (AFAIK), code. FigShare.com is a DataCite member that has a nice interface for uploading and giving DOIs to research content.

fluidcruft 12y ago

Is this essentially the NIH policy, now also applied to the NSF? If so this is great news! (Actually, I didn't realize the NSF wasn't on board with this already)

batbomb 12y ago

This is nice gesture, but in my experience, especially for medium/large experiments, it almost definitely won't be applicable to analysis software, private datasets/raw data/metadata, and more specifically middleware. It doesn't really help with reproducible results in the cases which might be most interesting. For medium to big data experiments, most source code is often useless without the (often custom or proprietary) middleware used for processing the data. For very large experiments, there is likely no canonical dataset and all "datasets" are actually generated on-demand (at least those might be covered under this). For software, and especially middleware, some universities will be very reluctant to give that up, especially because many times the majority of the software/middleware isn't actually funded through the NSF, but maybe through a computing division, foreign institution, or international collaboration, for example. At the very least, they'll likely want to assert a restrictive copyright on the license and likely even attempt to patent some of the methods (a la Google). Researchers themselves may be reluctant to give up code: Some (maybe most?) universities have profit sharing too. At the very least, however, it is a policy researchers can point to.

hackuser 12y ago
If someone has read the actual report, what is the plan for data? Neither the linked press release nor the homepage of the plan[1] say that data will be shared; they only mention papers. [1] https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/public_access/ https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/public_access/
sigmar 12y ago
By "research results," I take it that they are referring to the resulting paper, not the resulting data.
lordnacho 12y ago
I always wondered when reading papers how anybody could reproduce the conclusions (p-values, that sort) from the data. One simple solution would be every time you have some data analysis, you set up a VM or Docker type thing with your dataset and your code. That way other people can download it and run it, see your results, and tinker.

paulsutter 12y ago

Buggywhips. This plan is for articles to be widely available like two years after being written. One year after publication [1], which can be a year after the article is written [2]. Imagine a blogging platform that took two years between pressing "publish" and the article appearing online. It sounds like a Kafkaesque nightmare, but here it is, hailed as a breakthrough. The scientific community is as much to blame as the publishers. [1] "NSF will require that articles ... be available for download ... within one year of publication." (linked article) [2] http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-duration-of-peer-reviews-for-various-disciplines http://www.quora.com/What-is-the-duration-of-peer-reviews-fo... EDIT: The tepid reaction surprises me. We are on the verge of big advances in artificial intelligence, anti-aging, space travel, and we direly need new energy sources. Yet people are pleased with a two year delay disseminating the most important research? The heartbeat of progress is the time it takes to disseminate information. The status quo is absurd and we should be angry about it.

rtpg 12y ago
it's not like most research papers are out of date after a year. This is progress, albeit slow.
basilgohar 12y ago
As opposed to the current state of things, where there is basically no requirement to publish freely whatsoever?
wsxcde 12y ago
> Yet people are pleased with a two year delay disseminating the most important research? The heartbeat of progress is the time it takes to disseminate information. This is a bit of a strawman, don't you think? Researchers, the vast majority of whom are located in corporate R&D labs and universities, already have the subscriptions to big digital libraries so they can download papers as soon as they are published. The move towards open access mostly affects practising engineers outside this environment, and I think a delay of a year or two is acceptable in this scenario.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

legel 12y ago

problem solved: arxiv.org

afandian 12y ago
Problem not solved. This is primarily policy problem, not a technical one. See also: http://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2015/03/03/the-reckoning-an-analysis-of-wellcome-trust-open-access-spend-2013-14/ http://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2015/03/03/the-reckoning-an-analy...

ebauch 12y ago

As founder of openrev.org, a platform to share and discuss research papers openly (or privately), I am very pleased with this announcement. It is more than just baby steps towards an open, scientific communication system. In physics we do already have that with the arxiv.org (though there are no public discussions) but it works darn well in my sub-field and others. We cannot wait for most other disciplines to have an epiphany. So grant agencies forcing publishers AND authors to open access their material will bring us a huge step forward towards solving the most challenging problems of our time.