Also, some places where funding matches are used to bring stuff to fruition would lose significant funding from both sides: private would not in many cases invest where the results would be given away for free, and govt could not invest or match to help bring things to market.
For example the SBIR program would face significant problems, and it's responsible for a lot of good research and products. DARPA stuff would face the same issues.
Or, to keep such stuff not public, groups that currently publish would simply not publish in order to get funding to continue working. Then the public again loses access to knowledge.
Also, there is no such thing as zero cost - someone is going to have to pay to make such materials available - and that cost (even though small) will likely be borne by the taxpayers. For example, arxiv costs a few million a year to run.
Such solutions are unlikely to yield the results you want.
Simple fix: anything govt funded that's published (say in a journal) must be made open access. Anything that's not published is not affected. This deal doesn't sound so great for UC. It doesn't appear to apply to the traditional closed journals which includes most of the high prestige ones. UC was doing fine with no active subscriptions, per a thread a few days ago.
Not arguing with your broader point, but the passage quoted above lists all Cell Press & Lancet journals. These would include, e.g., Cell, Neuron, etc., which are top-tier journals in their respective fields.
I don't think anybody wants to make confidential info open here. We are talking about things that end up in publishers hands not trade secrets, defense or what else. DARPA funds a ton of open research too. I find your comment a bit misleading here.
Not all scientific papers become public. The OP wants to make them so. So in cases where the resulting papers would be classified or in proprietary publications these could no longer touch public money, no matter how small.
This affects every part of the research process. Buy an electron microscope with $1 of govt money and 1m of private, then can this be used for any research that is not 100% freely given to the public?
The cross contamination problems would be a nightmare.
PubMed costs a few hundred million a year to run, paid for by taxpayers. If you want us to just pay all journals to run directly from taxes, that's one solution. Then Elsevier can cut out the middleman.
If you don't want taxpayers paying publishers directly, then your solution will result in a lot less publications. I'm not sure either is going to be a better solution for society.
I'm not sure where you're getting these figures from.
> PubMed Central (PMC) costs US taxpayers about $4.45 million per year to run, according to documents recently obtained by an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
The National Library of Medicine's entire budget is $341 million, and they have brick and mortar buildings to maintain and many other responsibilities - there's no way that almost their entire budget would go to paying for PubMed.
PMC is a tiny part of what makes PubMed, and is even considered distinct from PubMed [1]. Dig up the budget for PubMed, not a tiny slice. I've been down this road many times....
Nowhere in that link, nor the article on PubMed describes PMC as a part of PubMed. Moreover, the relevant legal act, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008, requires NIH-funded research to be published in PMC, so it's PMC's budget that is relevant here.
You claimed that PMC is a part of PubMed, but there's nothing that says so. Anyway, NIH-funded research is required to be published on PMC, not PubMed, so the cost of PMC is the one to be examined for the question of a mandatory open access policy. So all of what PubMed does is entirely irrelevant to this question, since PMC is where these have to be published to.
$50? More like $2000-5000 to publish, then $50 to read one paper without a subscription (which itself is usually a multi-million dollar contract for Elsevier in the case of most US universities).
It seems like copyleft is a solution to that sort of problem in the software domain but obviously not really in this context.
Another issue is that animal researchers are at risk of being targeted by a smear campaign by anti-animal research groups as they often take advantage of sunshine laws to cherry pick less than flattering footage.
This has led to a weird culture of where scientists are very hesitant to share any data with other scientists at public universities.
Also, some places where funding matches are used to bring stuff to fruition would lose significant funding from both sides: private would not in many cases invest where the results would be given away for free, and govt could not invest or match to help bring things to market.
For example the SBIR program would face significant problems, and it's responsible for a lot of good research and products. DARPA stuff would face the same issues.
Or, to keep such stuff not public, groups that currently publish would simply not publish in order to get funding to continue working. Then the public again loses access to knowledge.
Also, there is no such thing as zero cost - someone is going to have to pay to make such materials available - and that cost (even though small) will likely be borne by the taxpayers. For example, arxiv costs a few million a year to run.
Such solutions are unlikely to yield the results you want.