5
Beyond publication costs, the proposed rule also makes journal subscriptions unallowable, requires agency pre-approval for conference attendance, and requires senior political appointees to review and approve all discretionary grant awards. Considering all of these provisions together, which concern is most significant to you?
Results
(166 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- Restricting conference attendance and journal access isolates researchers from their professional communities The cumulative effect is to make federally funded research harder to conduct, publish, and accessuser-672631Yuck
- Political appointees gain gatekeeper control over routine scientific activities The cumulative effect is to make federally funded research harder to conduct, publish, and accessuser-842404I'm also concerned about the aspect of unfunded mandates and disproportionate effect on researchers at poorly resourced institutions, but the two items I picked have the broadest impact.
- These provisions will accelerate a shift away from traditional publishing, which may ultimately be positiveuser-390144Publishers should be authentic and Journal subscriptions should have moderate costs and all the model should be paper free.
- user-452607I don't have a good background knowledge of the technicalities of this rule. However, current publishing model is getting unfavorable
- Restricting conference attendance and journal access isolates researchers from their professional communitiesuser-911600Self-explanatory
- Political appointees gain gatekeeper control over routine scientific activitiesuser-480186Political appointee = political control = tyrany
- Restricting conference attendance and journal access isolates researchers from their professional communities Political appointees gain gatekeeper control over routine scientific activitiesuser-541511While politics largely drive national interest for research, nonscientists in politics dictating which specific scientific activities should be pursued seems at best misinformed and at worst malicious
- The federal open access mandate becomes an unfunded mandate on institutions and individualsuser-498547These new federal rules which restrict funding for publishing fees, subscriptions, and conferences negatively affect small businesses and startups that have federal research grants. Thus, for sharing data scientists should pay money that could be used for experiments. It makes it almost impossible, especially for for small labs, to develop preclinical therapeutics.
- Political appointees gain gatekeeper control over routine scientific activitiesuser-890708有的学术机构太政治化和官僚化了，体现不了学术的公正和科学性。
- I do not consider these changes to be a significant concernuser-616480There needs to be an approval process. Without this, the risk of inappropriate use to funds would be increased. Any approval process is subject to biases.
- I do not consider these changes to be a significant concernuser-434227In my view, conference attendance is one of the least concerning aspects of the proposed rule. While conferences can facilitate networking and collaboration, their scientific value is often overstated relative to their cost. Many attendees present their own work, attend only a limited number of sessions, and spend much of their time on activities unrelated to research.With the widespread availability of preprints, recorded presentations, webinars, and virtual meetings, much of the knowledge exchanged at conferences can be disseminated more efficiently and at far lower cost. In many cases, conferences function as subsidized travel opportunities rather than essential scientific activities.For this reason, I do not view additional scrutiny of conference expenditures as a major threat to research. .
- The federal open access mandate becomes an unfunded mandate on institutions and individuals Restricting conference attendance and journal access isolates researchers from their professional communitiesuser-568782A researcher life is depending to a research journey, including writing a relevant research project to be performed and appropriately published. In addition peer exchange via meeting or conference, and publication in open access journal are important part of this interesting process that encompasses research's findings dissemination, young researchers' training, and knowledge sharing for research progress.
- Restricting conference attendance and journal access isolates researchers from their professional communities Political appointees gain gatekeeper control over routine scientific activitiesuser-673903This is a serious concern: "...requires agency pre-approval for conference attendance, and requires senior political appointees to review and approve all discretionary grant awards." especially in light of current political influence on research.
- Political appointees gain gatekeeper control over routine scientific activities The cumulative effect is to make federally funded research harder to conduct, publish, and accessuser-960476My main concern is the cumulative effect. Things like publication costs, journal access, conference attendance, and grant approvals aren't just minor administrative details. They're part of how research actually gets done and shared. I'd be especially wary if senior political appointees started acting as gatekeepers for routine scientific activities, since that could slow research down, discourage collaboration, and make scientific work depend more on political or administrative judgment than on peer review and scientific merit.
- Researchers at under-resourced institutions will be disproportionately affecteduser-78358Some institutions don’t have access to funding so they will be at a disadvantage
- Researchers at under-resourced institutions will be disproportionately affected The cumulative effect is to make federally funded research harder to conduct, publish, and accessuser-883415Together, these changes increase administrative burdens and financial barriers, disproportionately harming smaller institutions and reducing scientific communication and accessibility.
- Political appointees gain gatekeeper control over routine scientific activitiesuser-648105This is scary. It will suppress science that is not consistent with political views.
- I do not consider these changes to be a significant concernuser-964797The changes will affect different institutions differently. While many researchers are not accustomed to being accountable to certain funding organizations. There is no reason recipients shouldn’t be able to adapt. As long as the rules are clear, there is no reason a research award recipient should not be able to comply. I think many researchers may complain that it will stifle academic freedom, but the federal government as a research granting entity needs to be accountable to U.S. taxpayers.
- Restricting conference attendance and journal access isolates researchers from their professional communities Political appointees gain gatekeeper control over routine scientific activitiesuser-11803I believe there would be worrying situations if researchers couldn't access relevant articles. And excessive control of scientific activities could be used for political purposes or purposes other than those pursued by science.
- Researchers at under-resourced institutions will be disproportionately affected Restricting conference attendance and journal access isolates researchers from their professional communitiesuser-862972Underfunded institutions will be severely affected by this decision. Although this might push for open publishing, however, the articles that have already been published should be accessible to the institution.
Restricting conference attendence and journal access is not a good idea. The researcher should be free to publish wherever they want. Because this control can result in overreach of the government on scientific freedom, a researcher should have. - The cumulative effect is to make federally funded research harder to conduct, publish, and accessuser-188641Grant decisions and access to scientific communication can shift from professional judgment to political control. Restrictions are imposed on the entire cycle of scientific work. Grant receipt is controlled by state institutions. Private scientific institutions are not given the right to publicity when receiving grants.
- Restricting conference attendance and journal access isolates researchers from their professional communities Political appointees gain gatekeeper control over routine scientific activitiesuser-5378In my view, more than 2 of the choices are likely true. The only choice that is not true is that these changes are not a significant concern. They are a major concern.