Open Access News

News of the thyroid cancer that took the life of Chief Justice William Rehnquist sent thousands to the Internet to learn more about the symptoms and causes of this deadly disease....Most people find what they need by visiting patient-oriented sites and talking with their doctor, but in some instances, people want more. In an attempt to meet this need, NIH is spending millions of dollars to establish an online collection of manuscripts from articles based upon research it sponsors. While on the face of it this seems like a boon for the public, there is in fact a poison pill hidden in this gift from the federal government. NIH estimates that it underwrites only about 10 percent of the research published each year, a fact few members of the public realize. Moreover, much of this research involves cellular, molecular and genetic studies of disease, which do not have a direct impact on disease treatment. Second, and perhaps most important, NIH's collection will consist of research manuscripts that have been peer-reviewed but have not undergone technical review or copy editing. These are services publishers provide to improve clarity and safeguard against potential hazards such as dosage errors. A study recently conducted by one non-profit scientific publisher of a clinical journal found 214 possible errors in 129 peer-reviewed author manuscripts, the same type of manuscripts the NIH plans to offer to the public. Finally, the NIH program will not provide the public with access to review articles and commentaries, which are particularly valuable to the public because they provide interpretation, and context for new research findings. There are those who say patients should not have to wait at all for access to the kinds of technical reports NIH plans to post. Their slogan is "taxpayers should have access to research they paid for." These advocates conveniently dismiss the fact that there are real costs associated with publishing....Those pushing the NIH plan for public access claim that any taxpayer-subsidized article should be free to the public. But does that really make sense? The government also subsidizes wheat growers, but they still sell their grain, and no reasonable person asks those who produce bread from that wheat to give their bread away for free....The nearly 70 scientific and scholarly research publishers who comprise the DC Principles Coalition already offer the public free access to the final versions of all research articles they publish. At a time when research funding is already constrained, NIH should not divert its scarce resources to build a partial collection of incomplete and potentially flawed information in the name of public access. To do so is medically and morally wrong, and is ultimately not in the public's interest.

Comment. It's amazing that any paper will still publish these canards. Some quick replies: (1) The primary beneficiaries of the NIH public-access policy are researchers whose institutions cannot afford access to journals with rapidly-rising prices. The benefits to lay readers are important but secondary. (2) If it's really a problem that, at best, the NIH can only provide free online access to 10% of the world's medical research, then I'd be glad to join Frank and Glassroth in a call on other stakeholders to provide free online access to the remaining 90%. (3) Everyone acknowledges that peer review is fallible. If that were a reason to make peer-reviewed texts harder to access, then science would slow to a crawl. In any case, free online access to peer-reviewed medical research raises the average quality of free online medical claims. (4) It's true that the NIH program doesn't cover review articles. If that's a problem, then let's expand the scope of what's free online, not shrink it. (5) No serious advocate of open access, and no one at the NIH, has ever said that publishing is costless. (6) Wheat is rivalrous, which means that possession or consumption by one person excludes possession or consumption by others. But knowledge is non-rivalrous. It can be shared with everyone without diminishing possession or consumption by anyone. There is a huge difference, therefore, between giving taxpayers free access to publicly-subsidized wheat and giving taxpayers free access to publicly-subsidized knowledge. (7) The cost of the NIH program is $2-4 million/year, which comes to 0.01% of the NIH's $28 billion budget. To complain that this money is not spent on additional research is to overlook or deny the demonstrable ways in which free online access increases the impact and utility of the funded research. (8) Frank and Glassroth know better. Every one of their simple errors and misunderstandings was raised and answered during the debate over the NIH policy.