Bureaucrats, and especially teachers, will tend strongly toward the signaling and control view.
The U.S. government now requires that research it sponsors be placed into open-access databases. You could say that this was driven by legislatures via public pressure, but it’s still a case of government-backed open-acess.
I believe it’s only the NIH. Also, in practice, the resulting republications are published in open-access journals; but the software and data produced is often not made available. Often its guardians pretend that they want to make it available, but always give one excuse or another for not making it available right now.
I believe it’s only the NIH. Also, in practice, the resulting republications are published in open-access journals; but the software and data produced is often not made available. Often its guardians pretend that they want to make it available, but always give one excuse or another for not making it available right now.
Could you comment on journals that require publication of data and software? I read an economics paper that claimed that econ journals with such rules simply ignored them, but that biology had high compliance rates.
All the PLoS journals are open-access. Not sure what their requirements are. Other journals typically let authors opt-in for their articles to be open-access (free) if the authors pay a large fee (eg $2000 IIRC). The journals must be quite a racket; the authors pay the publishers, and the subscribers pay the publishers, and the advertisers pay the publishers, and the editors and reviewers work for free.
Is it the entire US government? I was under the impression that it’d been only the NIH so far. A quick look in Wikipedia seems to confirm this, though it does mention an act towards this that was proposed in 2006.
The U.S. government now requires that research it sponsors be placed into open-access databases. You could say that this was driven by legislatures via public pressure, but it’s still a case of government-backed open-acess.
I believe it’s only the NIH. Also, in practice, the resulting republications are published in open-access journals; but the software and data produced is often not made available. Often its guardians pretend that they want to make it available, but always give one excuse or another for not making it available right now.
Could you comment on journals that require publication of data and software? I read an economics paper that claimed that econ journals with such rules simply ignored them, but that biology had high compliance rates.
All the PLoS journals are open-access. Not sure what their requirements are. Other journals typically let authors opt-in for their articles to be open-access (free) if the authors pay a large fee (eg $2000 IIRC). The journals must be quite a racket; the authors pay the publishers, and the subscribers pay the publishers, and the advertisers pay the publishers, and the editors and reviewers work for free.
Do any such journals exist?
Is it the entire US government? I was under the impression that it’d been only the NIH so far. A quick look in Wikipedia seems to confirm this, though it does mention an act towards this that was proposed in 2006.
NIH. Patient groups that want to read the medical journals played a role.