For consumers of the information and those paying for it, it’s all upside to me. My only prediction for downside will be increased author fees for open access publications. Some venues have ridiculously high fees for open access authors, which is a barrier for some (not every author is funded by a research grant or in a department with a budget that can cover such fees). I expect they’ll go even higher, and the available exceptions or discounts will be more stringent. To me, the upsides vastly outweigh that downside though, so I’m very happy to see this move.

It is not just a barrier for researchers without lots of grant funding, but also diverts public funds from funding more research and research personnel to paying significant publication fees. This really needed a complementary cap on what would be allowed in paying such fees via grants to bring the costs down.

Some society-level journals that are used to help support their respective societies are likely going to struggle a bit.

That doesn't mean this isn't worth doing (it is), but it's going to be a thing.

I don't see any to be honest. Public money, public access.

the publication fees (paid by the authors) seem to be considerably higher

Elsevier pockets a 30+ percent profit margin.[1] Nothing besides market power forces them to push this to the authors.

[1] https://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/re... (page 23)

I hope this (White House Office of Science and Technology Policy guidance) is another nail in Elsevier's coffin.

My lab's gotten hit by some hefty publication fees this year - it's painful for early career researchers, but in aggregate, this is a good thing.

Definitely agree it's a good thing - my libertarian core can't help but wonder if the white house has (or ought to have) the power to unilaterally declare this, though. Would much prefer this had been voted on by congress.

It's policy guidance issued by the executive branch to the Federal agencies, which is well within the President's authority.

Of course, that also means that another president could reverse this policy just as easily. If Congress passed a law it would be harder to reverse.

i wonder why this is not a law already? at first i assumed lobbying, but i can't imagine the journal racket to be that lucrative to influence the required number of legislators to block the law, unlike oil or insurance. this seems like such a no-brainer issue, but i would love to hear the spin.

I'm sure there's a ton of special interests who wouldn't want all the research made public. the oil industry immediately comes to mind. so does tobacco, gambling, pharma, and farming.