NIH grant recipients are being caught in the middle – in between having to comply with a new National Institute of Health request that they submit their results to a public Web site within a year after they are published in a scientific journal, and between the desires of the publishers of their scientific work.
The NIH just instituted a policy of “asking” its scientific grantees to make their work publicly available – whatever that means. Meanwhile, researchers must walk a thin line between such requests and keeping their scientific publishers happy. The policy seems to make no one happy.
I’m all in favor of greater availability – it makes no sense to me that research paid for by American taxpayers (whether under the auspices of the NIH or some other scientific society) should be locked away for the benefit of scientific publishers. That includes, in my opinion, mainstream journals such as Science or Nature. But the NIH ought to qualify its ruling by demanding access, not asking for it.
Investing in people is key to successful transformation
People-related factors like talent attraction and retention and clear top-down communication will determine whether your transformation progresses or stalls.
Work reinvented: Tech will drive the office evolution
As organizations navigate a new world of hybrid work, tech innovation will be crucial for employee connection and collaboration.
The way forward: Merging IT and operations
Digital transformation in any industry begins with bridging the gap between two traditionally separate teams.
Be a good example
"It was in the newspaper, but the towers fell the next day, and what I’d done was quickly lost."
Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.