Is Access to Government-Funded Research a Right?

When the government funds academic research but publishers pay for editing and peer review, who gets to call the shots?

(Page 2 of 2)

“We’re seeing some authors do this,” Carroll said. PLoS One is an example of such an alternative system, which streamlines the peer review process but then keeps the process open for public comment or annotation after publishing: “The philosophy is that it’s more important to get the report out. Let the market decide how good the study is.” (Reason's Ron Bailey wrote about alternative models of scientific publishing back in 2007, including PLoS One, which published its 10,000th article in 2010.)

The market is also prompting academic publishers to make changes on their own, said Susan King, senior vice president of the Journals Publishing Group for the American Chemical Society’s Publications Division.

“From our perspective we do support universal access to the results but publishing needs to be sustainable,” King said. “Collaborations have already happened between publishers and their communities and it’s the best way forward.” The American Chemical Society does allow its authors to choose to have their works openly accessible immediately after publication. But so far, though the American Chemical Society publishes about 35,000 studies per year in its 41 journals, authors have only asked for open access for less than 2,000 papers, King said.

The breadth of ideas and potential solutions to the problem of access to academic research (to the extent that there is a problem at all) might make one ask why the government should get involved in this issue. The open access proponents have solutions. The publishers have solutions. The researchers have solutions. Can’t they work it out? Does anybody really believe the government is the best choice to shape the future of academic culture?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Robert||

    Wurst! Just wanted to see if anything'd be here by the time I "commented".

  • affenkopf||

    So what is the possible downside of this? If this causes less research to rely on government grants that's a plus.

  • ||

    "Does anybody really believe the government is the best choice to shape the future of academic culture?"

    Not me.

    There's been some talk by some academics of reforming or scrapping the peer review process altogether. The system can create a feedback loop which discourages independent or unpopular ideas, and this is wildly exacerbated by the fact that most research is paid for by the government either through direct grants or through public academic salaries. So one ends up with a toe the line or don't get paid situation. Case-in-point: the lipid hypothesis.

  • DJF||

    How about having the researchers giving access to the raw data that the taxpayer funded while the conclusions and peer review published in the journals need to be paid for by those wanting it.

  • Xiver||

    That ends up being a slippery slope, because researchers will claim that the portions of their research, that they don't want anyone to see, were funded privately, therefore off limits to FOIA requests.

  • MOFO.||

    I believe that Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) is actually an independent.

  • T||

    Shame we don't have a librarian or two that can comment on this.

  • SugarFree||

    I think anything that can stem the shitnami of academic publishing is a good thing. It is one of the biggest scams out there. Academics writing papers that no one reads, yet libraries are obligated to buy them at wildly inflated prices and bear the cost of storing them.

    Tenure committees value paper publication because they had to paper publish, it's the same petty reason you can't stamp out fraternity hazing. It's going to have to be the academics that put a stop to it, but they are barely motivated. This problem could dry up and blow away with two simple changes: Make peer-reviewing a tenure positive process and do not count non-open access "publishing" toward consideration of tenure. You preserve peer-review (and open it up and make it a more transparent process) and the publishers get F'ed in the A.

  • Geoff Nathan||

    This article misses the point that some in the open access community are making. The 'costs' of peer review are greatly exaggerated. Peer reviewers (I am one for several journals) are, of course, unpaid. So are (most) editors, at least in the humanities and social sciences. A few editors get a course release (which is a donation from their home institution). Publishers provide a way of coordinating this activity, and of course, do the actual journal production. But with the movement to electronic publishing, and the decreasing cost of on-demand publishing, the 'value added' by publishers is decreasing. And there are open-source models for coordinating the peer review process that are already in use in various fields.
    Of course the government shouldn't be making laws in this area (or any area related to publishing stuff), but that's no reason to defend the current journal business model, where prices for many journals have gone above four digits for libraries and into the low to mid hundreds even for individual subscribers ($179/year for Journal of Phonetics, $650/year for Language and Cognitive Processes).
    My journal subscription budget is now well over $700/year, when it used to be just over $100, and inflation hasn't been 700% in the past 20 years.

  • SugarFree||

    Five figures in some cases. I think we pay $80,000 a year for Chemical Letters.

  • Scott S.||

    I included Heather Joseph's graph showing the massive increase in expenses, but I deliberately didn't wade too far into the issue of costs for this particular story. It's a whole other component that would have essentially doubled the length of the piece. It may be something I may look into deeper in the future.

  • SugarFree||

    Scott, a good key phrase for looking into the librarian side of the issue is "serials crisis" if you haven't already run into it. (I only mention it because it doesn't appear in the piece.)

  • Brandybuck||

    So here I am avoiding work by surfing the intertubes, who lo and behold on the front page of Reason's HnR blog there is photo of statues of Leslie Groves and Robert Oppenheimer. But just not any photo of Groves/Oppenheimer, but a photo that came from my own personal website.

    Not really sure what that photo has to do with the story, but still a weird deja vu feeling.

  • Lou Skannen||

    Slightly OT: I'm rebuilding an experimental light sport aircraft. When I visited the FAA site to go through the government-funded rules, there were many references to particular ASTM standards which are available only by purchase. So I have no idea what the rules' details are and will have to pay significant $$ (for me) to find out. If ASTM standards show up in a reg, pertinent provisions should be attached as appendices or at least be available on the web. It's like the town's speed limits are published through Wiley and you have to buy the book to find out what they are.

  • BryanB||

    Why are the journals still asking for $25, $30 or more per article? The publishers don't seem capable of coming up with a iTunes-type business model, e.g. $1 an article or $5 per issue. And as someone not in a university, last time I checked there was still no way as an individual to purchase the kind of journal access that Ebsco, JSTOR, etc. provide to universities, even though I'd be ready to pay hundreds of dollars a year. As an (unpaid) peer reviewer, the longer this lasts, the more inclined I am to think there may be little alternative to shifting to open access journals, and insisting that research paid for by the public is freely available to the public.

  • شات عراقنا||



Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.