2
The proposed OMB rule states that "a general requirement to make results publicly available must not be construed as authorizing publication costs." How would you characterize this policy position?
Results
(168 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- It is contradictory — you cannot mandate open access while defunding the mechanism to achieve ituser-672631Yup, that's they it was and how it should be
- It is strategically ambiguous — it could be used to effectively suppress publication of inconvenient findingsuser-842404This is contradictory and could suppress publication if a separate application is required for coverage of publication costs. The peer review process should decide whether an article should be published, not the funding organization.
- It is a reasonable distinction — public access mandates and publication funding are separate policy questionsuser-477051These two things are different. Rather than offering a nuanced comment, it makes more sense to emphasize that the two are different.
- It is contradictory — you cannot mandate open access while defunding the mechanism to achieve ituser-480186I think it is clear enough: hypocrysy.
- It is strategically ambiguous — it could be used to effectively suppress publication of inconvenient findingsuser-541511Without an incentive to publish data the structure around published data becomes ambiguous at best. The peer review process on the other hand is entirely volunteer driven, though the process has merits, it does not necessarily guarantee that the data is correct. For this reason many labs attempt to reproduce results in their own labs prior to moving forward on ideas presented in a peer reviewed paper. A github type option for papers is an option where people publish data however they see fit and comments from other labs are allowed in order to build on ideas and techniques, this would allow for true data transparency as well as opening collaborations to groups previously unknown
- The contradiction is real, but it could accelerate the shift toward preprint-first or non-APC publication modelsuser-498547It is a contradiction to request publicly available data without providing the funds to cover the actual costs of publishing. It pushes researchers to use rapid preprint-first workflows to eliminate author fees.
- It is a reasonable distinction — public access mandates and publication funding are separate policy questionsuser-487884Costs retated to make science freely available to non profit asociations should be cover by a state administered fund provided by private companies
- The contradiction is real, but it could accelerate the shift toward preprint-first or non-APC publication modelsuser-890708出版费用太高必然导致发表者采用其它形式见刊，比如个人公众号等
- It is contradictory — you cannot mandate open access while defunding the mechanism to achieve ituser-364988If a body MANDATES open access of all data (regardless of who funded the study), then it is also logically important that they bear the costs of keeping that open access alive.
- The contradiction is real, but it could accelerate the shift toward preprint-first or non-APC publication modelsuser-616368The funding bodies should have their own platforms to publish the results achieved by their grant beneficiaries at no cost. This would make results publicly available, while retaining the control of the material.
- It is contradictory — you cannot mandate open access while defunding the mechanism to achieve ituser-568782The open access policy is walking with an open access journal, an open peer review, and APC fee payment when a paper is accepted for publication. This approach is relevant when chosing a liable open access journal.
- The contradiction is real, but it could accelerate the shift toward preprint-first or non-APC publication modelsuser-960476There's a real tension here. If publicly funded research has to be openly available, the cost of getting it out there can't just be waved away, or it lands on researchers, their institutions, or some less visible part of the system. But that pressure might actually be useful. It could push things away from expensive APC publishing toward preprint-first approaches, public repositories, institutional platforms, and cheaper non-profit options. And the real question isn't only who pays. It's whether the system itself ends up more transparent, affordable, and fair.
- It is contradictory — you cannot mandate open access while defunding the mechanism to achieve ituser-984622My recollection was that the OMB model puts all of the burden on the PIs to figure out how to solve the problem. If it were normal times, would rather see the US government negotiate costs with major publishers on its funded scientists' behalf, which would likely be more impactful. However, I think this administration would try to prevent US scientists from publishing in journals that do not align with its political priorities.
- It is a reasonable distinction — public access mandates and publication funding are separate policy questionsuser-78358This is fair
- It is a reasonable distinction — public access mandates and publication funding are separate policy questionsuser-217222As noted above when the budget is prepared the cost of publication preparation and open access fees should be built into the budget. The federal agencies administering the grants should provide a separate budget category to cover these costs
- It is contradictory — you cannot mandate open access while defunding the mechanism to achieve ituser-883415Requiring public access while prohibiting publication funding creates conflicting expectations, making compliance difficult for researchers lacking alternative financial support.
- It is contradictory — you cannot mandate open access while defunding the mechanism to achieve ituser-648105This suggests that individuals must know where and how to access the data to be able to request them.
- The contradiction is real, but it could accelerate the shift toward preprint-first or non-APC publication modelsuser-964797Research could be published as a government report. Other peer-review options are available.
- It is contradictory — you cannot mandate open access while defunding the mechanism to achieve ituser-862972If policymakers mandate open access, they should also provide a mechanism to achieve it. The problem with the current system is that many people's careers depend on the type of journal they publish in. Therefore, it's quite challenging to get rid of this system unless everyone comes together and ignores the various types of matrices pushed by publication agencies.
- It is strategically ambiguous — it could be used to effectively suppress publication of inconvenient findingsuser-269790This vague language helps only those with a discriminatory plan.
- It is contradictory — you cannot mandate open access while defunding the mechanism to achieve ituser-188641On the one hand, the results must be public and accessible. On the other hand, the mechanism for funding publications is not prescribed.