U.S. Science Funding Agencies Roll Out Policies for Free Access to Journal Articles

• December 24, 2024

In a significant move toward open science, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Energy (DOE) have unveiled their final plans to require immediate public access to peer-reviewed journal articles resulting from federally funded research. This change follows a call by the Biden administration in 2022 to make all federally funded research outputs freely accessible by the end of 2025. With the NIH and DOE leading the way, other U.S. research funding agencies are expected to implement similar policies by the end of this year.

The new policies mandate that grantees post their accepted, peer-reviewed manuscripts in public repositories as soon as they are published. The NIH has already begun to require immediate sharing of project data in 2023, with the DOE’s policies set to follow suit. These requirements are a major step toward realizing a global open science movement, as research funded by the U.S. contributes to 9% of the world’s research papers.

Mixed Reactions from Stakeholders

While many open science advocates have praised these policies, there are concerns from universities and publishers. Universities are particularly concerned about the logistical challenges and financial implications of implementing these policies. The main issue revolves around the potential costs associated with gold open access, a model where authors or institutions pay an article processing charge (APC) to make articles immediately available to the public. These charges can average around $2,000 per paper, which critics argue is unsustainable, especially for researchers without external funding.

Alternatively, the zero-embargo or green open access model allows authors to upload their accepted manuscripts to repositories without undergoing expensive APCs. However, publishers have raised concerns that immediate access to manuscripts could diminish the need for subscriptions, which provide funding for journals’ editorial and publishing processes. For example, some publishers argue that this could significantly impact their revenue model, particularly nonprofit societies that rely on subscriptions to fund their operations.

The Challenges for Universities and Publishers

The NIH and DOE policies do not endorse a specific business model for achieving zero-embargo public access and do not bar authors from paying APCs. Instead, these agencies encourage a more flexible approach, including the zero-embargo green OA route, where authors or institutions deposit their articles in public repositories without formatting or copyediting. While this approach has been in place since 2013, the new policies require more immediate and unrestricted access to research articles, which could be disruptive for the current publishing system.

For small, nonprofit scientific societies such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), the changes could have significant financial repercussions. ASCO, for example, has a substantial portion of its journal content authored by NIH grantees. With the new public access policies, ASCO could see a reduction in journal subscriptions, leading to a potential loss in revenue.

The logistical challenges of complying with the new policies are also significant. Universities have raised concerns about the time and resources required to ensure manuscripts are correctly formatted and deposited in public repositories such as PubMed Central. As it stands, publishers often handle the technical aspects of manuscript submission. The new policies, however, will shift this responsibility to the institutions, raising concerns about the increased administrative burden.

Educational Support for Compliance

Some universities are more prepared than others to comply with the new policies. Many institutions already require faculty members to upload accepted manuscripts to institutional repositories, a practice that aligns with the new NIH and DOE policies. Harvard University, for instance, has a long-standing commitment to public access policies. However, for other universities, there may be challenges in providing the necessary support and resources to help faculty navigate the new requirements.

NIH officials have acknowledged that there is a need for an extensive educational campaign to guide researchers through the new process, particularly in explaining the non-APC options for achieving open access. As some publishers have misled researchers into believing that the policies mandate payment for APCs, NIH will need to address these misunderstandings and provide clear guidance.

Copyright and Future Implications

A significant aspect of the new policies is their impact on copyright and intellectual property rights. Both the NIH and DOE have asserted that research funded by their agencies is covered by a “government use license,” which allows the immediate release of grantee papers, overriding standard publisher agreements that include embargo periods. This stance could limit publishers’ ability to control access to articles and charge fees for their use, including in cases where AI is used for research purposes.

In recent months, large publishers have begun selling access to their content for use in AI-driven text mining, a practice that could be more widespread under the new policies. Some publishers, including Taylor & Francis, have already entered into licensing agreements with AI developers. These licensing deals, which have been crucial to some nonprofit societies’ revenue streams, could be threatened by the shift toward immediate public access and AI usage.

Despite these concerns, advocates for open science have long argued that publicly funded research should be freely accessible to everyone, including AI developers. The NIH’s draft wording previously included a requirement that deposited manuscripts be “machine readable,” although this was later omitted in favor of “usability,” which still allows for the use of these texts in AI-driven research.

Looking Ahead

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has also published a draft update to its public access policy, closely resembling those of the NIH and DOE. The NSF is accepting public comments on the proposal until February 10, 2025.

While the policies have garnered support from the open science community, their future remains uncertain. Some members of Congress have expressed concerns about the implementation of these policies, with some appropriations bills proposing to block funding for them. Additionally, the potential for a change in administration could alter the trajectory of these policies, as seen during the Trump administration’s efforts to implement similar measures in 2020.

Nevertheless, many are optimistic about the future of zero-embargo green open access. As Peter Suber, a leading advocate for open access, states, “Zero-embargo green is coming on a large scale.” Although grantees will require time to adjust to these changes, the implementation of these policies is expected to accelerate, reshaping the landscape of academic publishing for years to come.

Source: Science