Stories with Tag Public Access

• Starting July 1, Academic Publishers Can't Paywall NIH-Funded Research

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-05-01 15:01:44

  Verbose tl;dr

  Starting July 1, 2026 (delayed from July 1, 2023, and subsequently, July 1, 2024), all peer-reviewed publications stemming from research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) must be made freely available in PubMed Central (PMC) immediately upon publication, with no embargo period. This updated NIH Public Access Policy eliminates the previous 12-month allowance for publishers to keep articles behind paywalls. The policy aims to accelerate discovery and improve public health by ensuring broader and faster access to taxpayer-funded research results. Researchers are responsible for complying with this policy, including submitting their manuscripts to PMC.

  Commencing on the first day of July in the year 2024, a significant alteration to the public accessibility of scholarly publications emanating from research endeavors financially supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will take effect. This modification pertains to the NIH Public Access Policy, a policy instrument designed to broaden the dissemination of scientific findings to the general populace and the global research community. Hitherto, researchers benefiting from NIH funding were granted a grace period of up to one year subsequent to the formal publication of their work in a peer-reviewed journal to make their manuscripts freely accessible in a publicly searchable database, namely PubMed Central (PMC). This policy allowed for a period during which publishers retained exclusive control over access to the research outputs. However, with the implementation of this revised policy, the aforementioned embargo period will be entirely eliminated.

  This implies that any and all peer-reviewed articles originating from NIH-funded research, irrespective of the journal in which they are published, must be made immediately available in PMC upon publication. This shift represents a substantial acceleration in the mandated timeline for public access, effectively eliminating the previous 12-month delay. The intention of this policy adjustment is to expedite the dissemination of critical scientific discoveries, fostering a more rapid translation of research findings into tangible advancements in public health and medical treatments. By removing the paywall barrier typically imposed by academic publishers, the NIH aims to democratize access to valuable scientific knowledge, enabling a wider range of stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, patients, policymakers, and other researchers, to readily access and benefit from the latest scientific breakthroughs. This increased transparency and accessibility is anticipated to stimulate further scientific inquiry, collaboration, and innovation, ultimately accelerating the pace of scientific progress and benefiting society as a whole. This new policy underscores the NIH's unwavering commitment to ensuring that publicly funded research yields the greatest possible public good.

  • NIH
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Public Access
  • open access
  • Research
  • Scientific Publishing
  • academic publishing
  • Paywalls
  • Policy
  • NIH Public Access Policy
  • funded research
  • Open Science
  • scholarly communication

  Summary of Comments ( 9 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43858568

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News commenters largely applaud the NIH's move to eliminate the 12-month embargo for NIH-funded research. Several express hope that this will accelerate scientific progress and broaden access to vital information. Some raise concerns about the potential impact on smaller journals and the future of academic publishing, questioning whether alternative funding models will emerge. Others point out the limitations of the policy, noting that it doesn't address issues like the accessibility of supplemental materials or the paywalling of publicly funded research in other countries. A few commenters also discuss the role of preprints and the potential for increased plagiarism. Some skepticism is expressed about whether the policy will truly be enforced and lead to meaningful change.

  The Hacker News post titled "Starting July 1, Academic Publishers Can't Paywall NIH-Funded Research" generated a significant discussion with a variety of viewpoints.

  Several commenters expressed strong support for the policy change, celebrating increased access to publicly funded research. They argued that taxpayers shouldn't have to pay twice for research – once through taxes and again through subscription fees. Some highlighted the potential for accelerated scientific progress and broader dissemination of knowledge as key benefits. One commenter specifically mentioned the positive impact on researchers in developing countries who often face financial barriers to accessing scientific literature.

  Others raised concerns about the potential financial impact on academic publishers and the sustainability of journal publication models. Some suggested alternative funding mechanisms might be necessary to support the peer-review process and ensure the quality of published research. One commenter questioned whether the policy would truly eliminate all paywalls, pointing out that publishers might find loopholes or alternative ways to restrict access. They also discussed the role of publishers in providing value-added services like editing, formatting, and indexing.

  A few commenters focused on the practical implementation of the policy, questioning how compliance would be monitored and enforced. They also debated the definition of "immediately available" and the potential for embargo periods.

  A particularly compelling point raised by one commenter was the possibility of a shift towards preprint servers like arXiv and bioRxiv. They argued that if publicly funded research is freely available elsewhere, the incentive to publish in traditional journals might diminish. This could lead to a fundamental change in the academic publishing landscape.

  Another interesting comment thread discussed the broader implications for open access and the potential for similar policies to be adopted by other funding agencies. Some commenters expressed hope that this policy would set a precedent for greater public access to research across all disciplines.

  There was also a discussion about the role of libraries, with some commenters suggesting that they might play a more active role in disseminating research under the new policy.

  Overall, the comments reflect a mix of optimism about increased access to research and concerns about the potential challenges and unintended consequences of the policy change. Many commenters acknowledge the complexity of the issue and the need for careful consideration of all stakeholders involved.

• Pressure grows to hold secret Apple data privacy hearing in public

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-03-14 10:58:47

  Verbose tl;dr

  Pressure is mounting on the UK Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) to hold its hearing on Apple's data privacy practices in public. The ISC plans to examine claims made in a recent report that Apple's data extraction policies could compromise national security and aid authoritarian regimes. Privacy advocates and legal experts argue a public hearing is essential for transparency and accountability, especially given the significant implications for user privacy. The ISC typically operates in secrecy, but critics contend this case warrants an open session due to the broad public interest and potential impact of its findings.

  Mounting public and political pressure is intensifying demands for transparency regarding Apple's forthcoming closed-door hearing with the UK Parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC). This hearing, scheduled to delve into the implications of Apple's data privacy practices on national security, has sparked significant controversy due to its confidential nature. Critics argue vehemently that such a crucial discussion, pertaining to the delicate balance between individual privacy rights and governmental security interests, warrants public scrutiny. The clandestine nature of the proceedings, they contend, undermines democratic principles and fosters an environment of secrecy that could potentially obscure vital information from the public discourse.

  Specifically, the ISC, tasked with overseeing the UK's intelligence agencies, intends to examine Apple's end-to-end encryption policies and their potential impact on law enforcement and national security efforts. End-to-end encryption, a security measure that ensures only the sender and intended recipient can access the content of a message, has been a recurring point of contention between technology companies and governments globally. While proponents laud its efficacy in safeguarding user privacy, governments often express concerns about its potential to hinder investigations into criminal activity and terrorism.

  This tension lies at the heart of the demand for a public hearing. Transparency advocates, including prominent civil liberties organizations and members of Parliament, maintain that a public forum would not only shed light on the complexities of this debate but also allow for a more informed and nuanced public understanding of the issues at stake. They argue that excluding the public from this critical conversation risks perpetuating misconceptions and fueling distrust between citizens, technology companies, and the government. The present closed-door arrangement, they insist, disregards the public's right to participate in discussions that directly impact their fundamental rights and freedoms.

  The ISC's decision to hold the hearing privately stems from its classification as a "private session," purportedly necessary for the discussion of sensitive intelligence matters. However, this justification has been met with skepticism and calls for greater accountability. Critics argue that the cloak of secrecy surrounding the hearing could be exploited to shield potentially controversial government policies or actions from public scrutiny. The growing chorus of voices demanding transparency underscores a fundamental concern about the potential erosion of democratic principles when crucial discussions regarding national security and individual liberties are conducted behind closed doors. The pressure on the ISC to reconsider its decision and hold the hearing publicly continues to mount as the date of the session approaches.

  • Apple
  • Data Privacy
  • Privacy Hearing
  • government surveillance
  • technology policy
  • digital rights
  • law enforcement
  • Secret Hearings
  • transparency
  • Public Access
  • UK Government
  • National Security
  • Investigatory Powers Act
  • Terrorism
  • Cybersecurity

  Summary of Comments ( 9 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43361381

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters largely agree that Apple's argument for a closed-door hearing regarding data privacy doesn't hold water. Several highlight the irony of Apple's public stance on privacy conflicting with their desire for secrecy in this legal proceeding. Some express skepticism about the sincerity of Apple's privacy concerns, suggesting it's more about competitive advantage. A few commenters suggest the closed hearing might be justified due to legitimate technical details or competitive sensitivities, but this view is in the minority. Others point out the inherent conflict between national security and individual privacy, noting that this case touches upon that tension. A few express cynicism about government overreach in general.

  The Hacker News post titled "Pressure grows to hold secret Apple data privacy hearing in public" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43361381) has generated several comments discussing the implications of the related BBC article about a legal dispute between Apple and Corellium. The discussion centers around transparency, national security, and the potential chilling effect on security research.

  Several commenters express concern over the secrecy surrounding the hearing. They argue that issues involving fundamental rights, such as data privacy, should be conducted publicly to ensure accountability and allow for public scrutiny. One commenter highlights the irony of Apple, a company that champions user privacy, being involved in a closed-door hearing on a related matter. The sentiment expressed is that transparency is crucial for building trust and ensuring that decisions are made in the best interest of the public.

  A recurring theme in the comments is the potential misuse of national security concerns to justify secrecy. Commenters suggest that the government might be overusing national security arguments to avoid public scrutiny, thus potentially hiding questionable practices or decisions. They point out that while genuine national security concerns warrant certain levels of secrecy, it shouldn't be used as a blanket justification to avoid transparency in matters of public interest.

  The potential impact on security research is also a significant concern raised by commenters. They argue that closed-door hearings and potential restrictions arising from them could stifle legitimate security research. One commenter suggests that the government's actions might create a chilling effect on researchers who expose vulnerabilities, potentially leaving critical systems more vulnerable to exploitation. This could lead to a situation where vulnerabilities are discovered and exploited by malicious actors before they can be patched.

  Some comments also delve into the specifics of the case, questioning Corellium's business practices and the implications of their technology. They also express concern over who would really benefit from a "backdoor" in Apple. Commenters analyze the legal arguments and the potential outcomes, speculating on the ramifications for the broader tech industry.

  In summary, the comments on Hacker News express considerable concern over the lack of transparency in the Apple-Corellium case, with particular emphasis on the potential negative impact on data privacy, security research, and the perceived overuse of national security arguments to justify secrecy.