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.
Capitalizing on machine learning with collaborative, structured enterprise tooling teams
Machine learning advances require an evolution of processes, tooling, and operations.
The Download: how to fight pandemics, and a top scientist turned-advisor
Plus: Humane's Ai Pin has been unveiled
The race to destroy PFAS, the forever chemicals
Scientists are showing these damaging compounds can be beat.
How scientists are being squeezed to take sides in the conflict between Israel and Palestine
Tensions over the war are flaring on social media—with real-life ramifications.
Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review
Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.