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.
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.