Copyright

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?

|

The White House petition seemed simple: "We petition the Obama administration to require free access over the Internet to scientific journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research." The petition very quickly reached the 25,000 threshold in early June required for the administration to have a staffer formally respond. (It has not yet done so.) The issues behind the efforts, though, are more complex than a simple sentence.

The petition was introduced by access2research.org, the work of several proponents of the open access movement. The movement, tracing its roots back to the Internet expansion of the 1990s, strives to open access to all peer-reviewed scholarly research and journals online.

Access2research aims to extend a model the National Institutes of Health (NIH) instituted in 2009. The NIH requires studies they've funded to become publicly available online within a year of publication.

Legislation has been introduced by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) to extend the model to 11 other federal agencies. Free access is supported by the Association of Research Libraries, whose members have seen their subscription expenses soar over the past decade. It is opposed by the Association of American Publishers, whose members publish the journals.

Here's the central conflict: While government funding pays for the research, it does not cover the cost of peer review, editing and publication, costs borne by private publishers and then recouped (along with a tidy profit) through subscriptions to their journals. As such, Association of American Publishers' members bristle at the government mandating their business models. The movement's supporters, though, say they want the systems to accommodate the publishers' needs and that NIH's method has succeeded in doing so.

"The policies we're advocating for are to come up with a balance of the interests of the publishers in recouping the costs and the public being served," explained Heather Joseph, executive director of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Research Coalition within the Association of Research Libraries. "We're trying to find that sweet spot."

Graph courtesy of a 2010 report on Open Access efforts by Heather Joseph for the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Research Coalition.

By giving publishers a year to use their copyright monopoly to sell access to journals and articles, Joseph and other open access proponents believe they may have found that spot. Allan Adler, vice president for legal and government affairs for the Association of American Publishers, disagreed and questioned whether such a "sweet spot" could ever be found, given the diversity of publishing systems and varying access demands depending on the field of research.

"The main issue about it is that there is such great diversity in this field," Adler said. "You have journals, some of which are for-profit, some non-profit. There are differences in the way they publish. … One size for an embargo doesn't work. … 'One year should be enough time.' How does the government know that? How does the government decide that a 12-month embargo works in the same way for different areas and different kinds of publishers?"

Adler also pointed out that if the government wanted to make the research public, it could do so right now without forcing publishers to surrender their works. As part of the NIH's policy, researchers are required to submit to the agency a final summary of their findings. There's no reason why this summary couldn't serve the public's needs, Adler argued.

But such a release would lack the peer-review input and editing the publishers provide, which in the academic world is such a vital component of the "publish or perish" environment. The more complex question lodged inside this fight, as these publishing models face the same digital delivery adaptations seen in the rest of the media world, is where exactly peer review might fit in the future of academic research publishing.

"In the mainstream, peer review is still considered one of your professional duties," said Michael Carroll, professor of law and director of the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University's Washington College of Law in Washington, D.C. Carroll is one of the proponents of the open access petition, as well as one of the founding board members of Creative Commons, a non-profit devoted to expanding the nature of copyright to allow for more control in the sharing of creative works.

Academics aren't paid for peer review, but there are still significant costs on the publishers' end in order to manage the process on behalf of the researcher. For the heavyweights of scientific journals, like those of Nature Publishing Group, the demand for an in-depth peer review process – not just to validate the science, but the value of the research – is probably not going to decline anytime soon. But just as Adler challenged a one-size-fits-all publishing model, Carroll said some in the field wonder the same about the peer review process and are beginning to look at alternative financing methods.

"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?

Advertisement

NEXT: A.M. Links: U.S-Israeli Malware Mapped Iran Computer Networks, U.N. Wants Accountability on U.S. Drone Strikes, Quantum Physics' Standard Model in Question

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wurst! Just wanted to see if anything’d be here by the time I “commented”.

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

  3. “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.

  4. 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.

    1. 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.

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

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

    1. 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.

  7. 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.

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

    2. 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.

      1. 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.)

  8. 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.

    http://www.usermode.org/photos…..7/la57.jpg

  9. 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.

  10. Our specialty wholesale google jerseys,custom nba jerseys,wholesale nba jerseys,here can Save up to 50% discount for jerseys.
    If Obama is reelected, there is a larger lesson, if he can accept it. Simplicity trumps Rube Goldberg-like legislative constructs with levers and pulleys and wheels within wheels. For Obama and health care, the simpler remedy (which would not have had anyone running to the Supreme Court) would have been to reduce the pool of uninsured Americans through incremental approaches like lowering the age for Medicare and raising the income ceiling to qualify for Medicaid.

  11. Our specialty wholesale google jerseys,custom nba jerseys,wholesale nba jerseys,here can Save up to 50% discount for jerseys.
    If Obama is reelected, there is a larger lesson, if he can accept it. Simplicity trumps Rube Goldberg-like legislative constructs with levers and pulleys and wheels within wheels. For Obama and health care, the simpler remedy (which would not have had anyone running to the Supreme Court) would have been to reduce the pool of uninsured Americans through incremental approaches like lowering the age for Medicare and raising the income ceiling to qualify for Medicaid.

  12. As such, Association of American Publishers’ members bristle at the government mandating their business models. The movement’s supporters, http://www.riemeninnl.com/riem…..-c-20.html though, say they want the systems to accommodate the publishers’ needs and that NIH’s method has succeeded in doing so.

  13. Academics aren’t paid for peer review, but there are still significant costs on the publishers’ end in order to manage the process on behalf of the researcher. For the heavyweights of scientific journals, like those of Nature Publishing Group, the demand for an in-depth peer review process ? not just to validate the science, but the value of the research ? is probably not going to decline anytime soon. But just as Adler challenged a one-size-fits-all http://www.lunettesporto.com/l…..c-3_7.html publishing model, Carroll said some in the field wonder the same about the peer review process and are beginning to look at alternative financing methods.

  14. 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.

  15. thanks for share you are a very smart person how can i find out more?

  16. wonderful post a cool post there mate keep on writing

  17. you made some clear points there thank you information seems overwhelming

  18. great delivery topic great articles it helped me very much

  19. great post i have some ideas from this thanks its very nice to read

  20. i definitely love this website saved to bookmarks

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.