
Interim OSTP Director Alondra Nelson (Image credit – Neil Adams / Army Research Laboratory)
Interim OSTP Director Alondra Nelson (Image credit – Neil Adams / Army Research Laboratory)
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy set off a tectonic shift in scientific publishing last week, issuing a memorandum
The memo updates a 2013 OSTP policy
OSTP offered little indication it was contemplating such a change and, though the Trump administration considered
Announcing the new policy, interim OSTP Director Alondra Nelson argued that eliminating embargos will help to make access to research more equitable and accelerate new discoveries.
“Financial means and privileged access must never be the prerequisites to realizing the benefits of federally funded research that the American public deserves,” she wrote. Pointing to the lifting of paywalls during the pandemic as exemplary of the benefits of immediate access, she continued,
The insights of new and cutting-edge research stemming from the support of federal agencies should be immediately available — not just in moments of crisis, but in every moment. Not only to fight a pandemic, but to advance all areas of study, including urgent issues such as cancer, clean energy, economic disparities, and climate change.
Agencies with annual R&D expenditures greater than $100 million are directed to update their public access policies and submit them to the White House for review within six months. Agencies with smaller R&D budgets, which were not subject to the 2013 policy, will have an extra six months to comply. All agencies are then expected to issue implementation plans by the end of 2024, with an effective date no later than one year after their release.
Some observers have called attention
OSTP argues in its economic analysis that technological advancements and social shifts since 2013 have made it possible to require immediate access to publications and data without unduly disrupting the publishing ecosystem. These include declining costs of digital publishing and data storage, declining use of physical publications, and the proliferation of models for open sharing of research.
The office acknowledges that publishers provide services beyond publication that are valued by the scientific community, such as managing peer review, curating the literature, providing analytics, and “in some cases” offering “prestige.” It also notes that non-profit professional societies use income from publishing to support activities such as scientific conferences, public outreach, and grants that support the research workforce.
At the same time, OSTP stresses that publishers benefit from public funding in various direct and indirect ways. Federal agencies fund the research, researchers sometimes pay publication costs using a portion of their grant money, and researchers perform peer review for free. In addition, libraries that are supported by overhead funding from grants use a portion of their budgets to pay for journal subscriptions.
OSTP notes that publishers have embraced
In an interview
It is plausible the policy will permit publishers to maintain a paywall on the final version so long as the author accepted manuscript is deposited in a free repository. However, industry observers predict
A spokesperson for the major commercial publisher Springer Nature stated
OSTP’s memorandum states agencies should allow grant applicants to include “reasonable” publication and data management costs as allowable expenses in their research budgets. However, its economic analysis report acknowledges that agencies would need additional funds from Congress to cover publication fees without diverting funds from current activities, observing that most agencies “currently do not explicitly set aside dedicated funding for these costs.”
To offer a sense of how much these costs might amount to, OSTP estimates that all the federally funded research papers published in 2020 would cost up to around $789 million to publish, or about 0.5% of the $150 billion that federal agencies spent on R&D for that year. The calculation assumes a total output of 263,000 papers and an article processing charge of $3,000.
The office does not estimate costs for making data available, only citing a proposal
Many publishers that have reacted to the policy so far have emphasized they already maintain a variety of open access journals.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science, highlighted
Similarly, AIP Publishing Chief Publications Officer Penelope Lewis told FYI in an email, “While it is not yet clear how the federal agencies will amend their policies, AIP Publishing welcomes the OSTP announcement and what it could mean for public access to research. All of our journals provide options to publish open access with a CC-BY license, whether through our portfolio of fully open access journals or through our Author Select hybrid option. Our authors may also immediately deposit their accepted, peer-reviewed manuscripts in public repositories, allowing for public access to those articles without delay.”
(FYI is published by AIP, a non-profit federation of scientific societies. AIP is partially supported by revenues from AIP Publishing, a wholly owned but independently operated subsidiary.)
Lewis also noted that AIP Publishing recently surveyed
Some publisher representatives have criticized the process OSTP used to develop the policy and argued it has understated the potential costs.
For example, the Association of American Publishers blasted
Lawmakers could in principle override the OSTP policy, but it is not clear if there would be support for doing so.
When the Trump administration considered eliminating the embargo period, the move was criticized by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Intellectual Property Subcommittee. He argued
However, there are also strong supporters of public access in both parties. Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-OR) has previously sponsored legislation