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.
A large-scale effort to reproduce the findings of prominent preclinical cancer biology studies revealed a significant reproducibility problem. Researchers attempted to replicate 50 studies published in high-impact journals but successfully reproduced the original findings in only 12 cases. Even among these, the observed effect sizes were substantially smaller than initially reported. This widespread failure to replicate raises serious concerns about the reliability of published biomedical research and highlights the need for improved research practices, including greater transparency and rigorous validation.
Hacker News users discuss potential reasons for the low reproducibility rate found in the biomedical studies, pointing to factors beyond simple experimental error. Some suggest the original research incentives prioritize novelty over rigor, leading to "p-hacking" and publication bias. Others highlight the complexity of biological systems and the difficulty in perfectly replicating experimental conditions, especially across different labs. The "winner takes all" nature of scientific funding is also mentioned, where initial exciting results attract funding that dries up if subsequent studies fail to reproduce those findings. A few commenters criticize the reproduction project itself, questioning the expertise of the replicating teams and suggesting the original researchers should have been more involved in the reproduction process. There's a general sense of disappointment but also a recognition that reproducibility is a complex issue with no easy fixes.
Summary of Comments ( 9 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43858568
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.