PDA

View Full Version : Do funding bodies require astronomers to publish results openly?



Jean Tate
2014-Oct-30, 08:23 PM
The title doesn't have enough space for the full question, which is something like this:

To what extent do the entities which fund professional astronomers' research ('funding bodies') require those astronomers to publish the results from the research the funds were used for in journals (and conference proceedings), to which the general public has 'open access'?

Perhaps a concrete, but hypothetical, example might help. Suppose you are a professional astronomer, and you want $$ to study supernova remnants in polar ring galaxies. You apply for, and are given, $$ to do just that; the $$ comes from the Science Council of the Republic of {name}. You do the research - which may be either observational, theoretical, or a bit of both - and write up the results. You submit your paper to the International Journal of Supernova Astronomy (IJSA, a name I just made up), it gets reviewed by peers, and is accepted for publication.

A condition of your getting the $$ is that, once published, your paper must be freely available, e.g. as a download from the IJSA site (let's assume that an arXiv preprint is not good enough); how you ensure that this happens, however, is not specified in the conditions.

I know that the general direction of "Open Access" is towards 'if you get taxpayer money, your results must be freely available to taxpayers' - and some funding bodies have quite explicit and detailed policies (e.g. Research Councils UK (http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/openaccess/policy/)).

Turning this question around, and taking two specific examples:

in Cardamone+ (2009) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.399.1191C), in the Acknowledgements section, it says "Supports from NSF grant #AST0407295 and Yale University are gratefully acknowledged. CL acknowledges support from the STFC Science in Society Programme." If one were able to get a copy of NSF grant #AST0407295, would it include language to the effect that these research results had to be published in a way that they could be accessed openly, and for free?
in Raddick+ (2010) (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AEdRv...9a0103R), also in the Acknowledgements section, "K.S. gratefully acknowledges support from Yale University" If one were able to learn the details of the support, would it include a requirement that these research results had to be published in a way that they could be accessed openly, and for free?


This question/thread is related to my Do IRBs require PIs to notify subjects when a paper is published? (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?154068-Do-IRBs-require-PIs-to-notify-subjects-when-a-paper-is-published) one.

tusenfem
2014-Oct-30, 09:25 PM
In Austria one of the main funding agencies, FWF, states that all papers that are written under that grant need to be published in open access. They specifically pay for that, the publication costs are not taken out of your grant (which is nice because some journals are expensive).
However, I do nor think that in general funding agencies ask for open access, otherwise I would get many more papers much more easily from colleagues who work on NASA grants.

Jens
2014-Oct-30, 11:17 PM
In the US there is a move toward requiring tax-funded research to be publicly accessible after 12 months.

StupendousMan
2014-Oct-31, 01:23 AM
Neither NSF nor NASA requires results to be published in open-access journals.

Jean Tate
2014-Nov-01, 05:25 PM
Thanks tusenfem, Jens, StupendousMan.

I will refrain from commenting about the situation in the US (I can't think of how to avoid the political dimension), but @tusenfem: does that mean such researchers cannot publish in the leading peer-reviewed journal Icarus (which seems to have no 'free' papers)?

tusenfem
2014-Nov-01, 08:12 PM
Also Icarus offers open access, the authors just have to pay more to publish their paper (or in the FWF case, the funding agency).
Most journals offer this nowadays.



Funding body agreements and policies

Elsevier has established agreements and developed policies to allow authors whose articles appear in journals published by Elsevier, to comply with potential manuscript archiving requirements as specified as conditions of their grant awards. To learn more about existing agreements and policies please visit http://www.elsevier.com/fundingbodies. Open access

This journal offers authors a choice in publishing their research:
Open access
• Articles are freely available to both subscribers and the wider public with permitted reuse
• An open access publication fee is payable by authors or their research funder
Subscription
• Articles are made available to subscribers as well as developing countries and patient groups through our access programs (http://www.elsevier.com/access)
• No open access publication fee

Jean Tate
2014-Nov-02, 11:33 AM
Also Icarus offers open access, the authors just have to pay more to publish their paper (or in the FWF case, the funding agency).
Most journals offer this nowadays.

Thanks! :)

Kinda sets up some cruel choices, doesn't it?

I mean, for CQ's citizen science work, on the one hand there's a strong desire to make results from CQuestian's clicks (etc) as widely and freely known to at least those whose selfless work made the results possible (so, no brainer, pay the extra and make the paper open access); on the hand, CQ is seriously underfunded, so money spent ensuring open access is money that may be better spent helping to develop the next crowd-sourcing citizen science project (so, no brainer, find a way to make the essential essence of the published paper freely available, but don't pay for open access). To take one example.

Then there are those independent citizen scientists, who already face numerous barriers to even doing independent research (e.g. all those vital published papers behind paywalls!), face yet another barrier ... if they are so lucky (?) as to get their paper accepted for publication (in Icarus, say), do they shell out the 1-3 extra laptops (a convenient measure for costs) so their work can be freely accessed by all (including fellow citizen scientists)? Or do they opt for 'my paper, forever behind a paywall', and spend the money saved on buying a super-duper new laptop (and faster internet access)?

In the first case, the choice might be mitigated by a funding agency's policies (one day, perhaps, NASA will catch up with FWF?); in the second, no such mitigation, right?

StupendousMan
2014-Nov-02, 03:19 PM
People with money will continue to pay journals to publish their
work. I suspect that people without money will just
post it on arXiv -- in astronomy, at the moment, that makes
it just as visible.

tusenfem
2014-Nov-02, 03:44 PM
Well there are also journals like "annales geophisicae" (in which I mostly publish, open access journal of the European Geosciences Union EGU, http://www.egu.eu/publications/open-access-journals/) which charges about €50 per published page.
(I just got wonderful referee reports back, only add a short, and most likely interesting, discussion to the paper about the link between the two effects I am discussing at comet Halley.)

arXiv is fun, but still, it is not peer reviewed

Cougar
2014-Nov-02, 04:11 PM
....on the [other] hand, CQ is seriously underfunded, so money spent ensuring open access is money that may be better spent helping to develop the next crowd-sourcing citizen science project (so, no brainer, find a way to make the essential essence of the published paper freely available, but don't pay for open access).

Well, I'm an amateur, but I've proofread more than a couple proposals for funding. These typically express the author's intent to publish the project's results and/or present the results at a conference. Seems like it might add a modicum of attractiveness to the proposal if you indicate you intend to make the publication freely available. Any extra expense could be added to the proposed project's proposed budget....

StupendousMan
2014-Nov-02, 09:01 PM
arXiv is fun, but still, it is not peer reviewed

If one wants to make one's work available to the general community, it doesn't matter if it's not peer-reviewed. I doubt that most users of arXiv wait to read a paper's title or abstract until they can figure out if it has been reviewed.

If one wants to get a job or funding, then sure, it needs to be peer-reviewed.

Jean Tate
2014-Nov-04, 04:10 PM
Thanks tusenfem, Cougar, and StupendousMan! :)

On arXiv vs peer-reviewed published: the Comments line in the main arXiv page for a preprint is more than enough to indicate things such as "submitted to MNRAS" or "accepted for publication by Icarus". If such phrases are used (and if they're honest), they help you to decide if you should try to get the published paper or not.

I'm sure it's fairly common that a paper that's finally published will differ significantly from the arXiv preprint that went up before the paper was even submitted to a journal. I wonder, however, how common it is for there to be quite important changes between the two? The kind that would trip you up, as a citizen scientist, if you relied upon the preprint and cited the published paper; perhaps this is an example of where you might be "fish-slapped" [1]?

[1] see this post by ngc3314 (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php?153992-Why-is-there-essentially-zero-work-being-done-by-Citizen-Scientists-(amateurs)&p=2250839#post2250839)