The White House has updated its policy on federally funded research. Going forward, the results of studies funded by the government must be made public right away. Until now, researchers who receive federal funding have been allowed to publish their findings in academic journals exclusively for one year, effectively adding a paywall to their work. Agencies will need to update their policies accordingly by December 31st, 2025
God Bless President Biden,it's about time we had access to the research our tax dollars buy.
Federally funded studies must be freely accessible to the public, White House says.
Amazingly, those who publish research pay to have it published. The journals don't pay peer-reviewers, but co-ordinate their efforts. They also edit and maintain journalistic standards. If the publisher can't profit, who will do those tasks?
My understanding is that they have profit margins even in excess of Pharma companies.
These journals have such monopoly pricing power and profit margins, somehow I just don't think they will disappear. Any more than say the Diabetics manufacturers who just got their 1000% profit margins clipped just a little by recent anti-inflation legislation.
Even today, researchers always had the option to publish online. They still apparently have to pay to get published. The journals make their real money charging educational/research libraries obscene amounts for subscriptions.
As you indicated these journals have almost no costs. They are highly profitable. Why would you think they would go out of business?
You think educational/research libraries will stop buying subscriptions at whatever price they are told to pay?
You and I don't buy such subscriptions. They will not lose our $0.00 money. Unfortunately we indirectly end up paying for the subscriptions. But again, they will continue to do just fine.
No question they are monopolistic, have obscene profits, and need to be reined in. I thought giving them a year to recoup their costs was a good idea. If it's free to everyone from the start, why would anyone pay for a subscription? And if no one pays for the publication, who will coordinate the peer-review and the editing?
It's no different from, say, the New York Times behind a paywall.
The educational / research libraries will continue to pay for the subscriptions. They have no viable options.
The researchers will continue to pay their tax.
If these journals could have been disintermediated, the researchers would have been just fine posting their research to the web and not paying the journals.
You clearly understand medical research better than anyone here.
But this is about money and business... and I submit you are making flawed assumptions of cause and effect with regard to that.
Rest assured, as these journals have been bought and sold and assets, all the operational costs that can be stripped out of them, have been stripped out of them.
They have such a high ROI they will continue to operate as they have been long after they have been disintermediated by the internet... which disintermediation will take many generations and never fully occur until at least of several; generations of yet-to-exist researchers are born and die.
They cost almost nothing to run, and all the costs possible have been stripped out of them already.
I have seen this in other businesses and industries. It takes a lot to kill established business models like these.
Think about a 50-year-old oil well that is well past its prime pumping a handful of barrels a day. Why would you shut it down? You don't. It generates revenue at almost no cost. You just let it keep pumping away.
If they are using my tax dollars....Biden's action on our behalf makes perfect sense. Have you been to ASCO and seen the incredible displays of wealth these vendors put on? They claim they sink the funds into research to justify incredible profits....so let them pay
That is not incontroverted. I read some research not so long ago (from the internet) that a material portion of this published research is not reproducible.
For instance that new expensive Alzheimer's drug, aduhelm, which turned out not to work, was premised on decades-old research which decades-old research is now claimed to be non-reproducible.
Many claim the medical research system is broken. That the journals are not doing their job.
These guys track this stuff (as best is possible) and they are always complaining about the complicity of journals.
I get the impression that the journals could stop much of this if they would just take more seriously their responsibility for maintaining academic standards (as opposed to maintaining reliably high returns for their investors).
It costs money to pay staff to do that job. And presumably, they will lose some business if they impose too difficult requirements on authors.
It is not that mistakes and malingering does not occur. It is that they do occur and will always occur, BUT there are systems in place to catch such occurrences and correct them. The system has been operating well. I don't agree that medical research and its publication is broken. But it does require vigilance and continual correction.
I am not confident, as you seem to be, that publications can survive without pay. Witness the cutbacks in so many news publications that didn't charge, for online publication, at least at first. Editing and review are critical.
That said, I think the FTC should pursue antitrust policing of that industry..
1. They have a high margin low cost business model coupled with with branding that provides them with a whole lot of protection. Their business model is nothing like that of the publications you mention.
2. With respect to the quality of medical research please permit me to defer to your superior situational awareness of that ecosystem.
I am informed only by sporadic news items on the subject. While you are a prodigious consumer of medical research.
Still some of what I have seen from time to time in my news feed makes me wonder how and why some of these people are getting away with what they are apparently are getting away with.
In any case there isn't a lot either of us can do about either issue is there? LoL
A decent discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of open access journals is here, together with its intersection with so-called "predatory" journals:
Maybe that's why it's looked down upon by academia. I see the potential for abuse; OTOH I have found it quite useful from time to time. (I'd rather see primary sources, but generally I find it quite good at what it does)
I don't think researchers pay to have their papers published, at least not in mainstream journals. Some open source journals require payment for publication, but those papers are rarely cited by others and many are rather suspect.
NEJM is published by the Massachusetts Medical Society, a non-profit institution consisting of doctors in the state. Unlike the others, it does not have an open access model, only subscription access. My guess is that they will charge author fees to cover their costs with the new law.
Many well-known (high quality) journals do have a page charge. Often these are journals associated with academic/professional societies like the American Chemical Society and the American Society for Microbiology. Many others, of course
What you say would be so in a small margin industry.
Pharma is one of the highest margin industries on the planet.
LITTLE KNOWN FACT: They have three lobbiests for each member of Congress
There is a profit margin at which the cause and effect you described might occur. But they have such high margins, you could cut their margins in half and it would not impair the deployment of capital for such usage.
As it is the current excess margins go to stock buybacks and employee compensation that is on average higher than that paid in industries with lower margins.
It would appear that I live in a more complex world than do you.
Why is it that I imagine that you are using your franchise to vote to support the dismantling of democracy and it's replacement with authoritarian rule such as was had in USSR and now Russia?
Are you aware that once you lose the ability to throw the bums out, things get really bad.
See how that worked for the Weimar republic after WWI.
I think it's actually on topic, just so so so wrong. Lol
Evidence of the human condition that is generating more and more authoritarian government and dysfunction in the world today.
But it appears to be part of the human condition which is preventing us from stopping climate change.... and imparing advancements in healthcare treatment for not only prostate cancer but many other diseases including say Covid.
The Pharmas certainly do their share of such published research (though they hide a fare bit of it as well).
Hard to classify what they spend.
A HUGE portion of the patents upon which their unearned monopoly profits are derived come from US Federal taxpayer money spent at US educational and similar institutions.
How do you account for that? I'm not certain. But you really can't disregard it.
Seems to me they should be at the minimum prohibited from manufacturing such drugs outside the US (whose tax revenues were used to invent the drug).
This thread is about The White House has updated its policy on federally funded research. Going forward, the results of studies funded by the government must be made public right away
I was asking about the percentage of published studies funded by the US Gov't.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.