This document summarizes a presentation on evaluating U.S. public policy regarding public access to federally funded research. It provides background on policies requiring researchers to submit final peer-reviewed manuscripts to public repositories within 12 months of publication. While attempts to restrict and broaden public access have failed, the Obama administration supported more open access and data. Proponents argue this increases innovation but opponents remain. Recommendations include reducing embargo periods and increasing compliance through improved systems and reduced burden on researchers. Higher education leaders are encouraged to educate on open access issues and monitor related global and funder policies.

1. Public Access to Federally Funded
Research: A Policy Evaluation from a
Higher Education Perspective
Kelly M. Broughton
2017 ASHE Conference

2. Outcomes
✔ Understand the history and goals of U.S. public policy regarding the
dissemination of the results of publicly-funded research.
✔ Identify the environmental influences and pressures on policy makers, legislators,
HEIs, and researchers regarding this policy.
✔ Evaluate indicators of policy effectiveness and efficiencies from multiple
stakeholders’ perspectives.
✔ Consider recommendations for policy performance improvement and for
academic leadership planning.

3. Definitions & Abbreviations
OA - Open Access: the free (to the reader) online availability of research articles
coupled with the rights to use these articles
Public Access - online availability of research for the public
NIH - National Institutes of Health: a unit of the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services which serves as the nation’s medical research agency
R&D - Research and Development

4. Why Care?
“Yawn” (CC BY-NC 2.0) by Eaulive

7. . . . all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the
National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final,
peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly
available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication . . .
- Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL 110-161(Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008)

8. Attempts to Restrict and to Broaden
Failed Legislation to Repeal
● The Fair Copyright in Research
Works Act, H.R. 801- 111th Congress
(2009-2010)
● Research Works Act, H.R. 3699 -
112th Congress (2011-2012)
Failed Legislation to Broaden
● Federal Research Public Access
Act, H.R. 4004 - 112th Congress
(2011-2012)

9. Open Government,
Open Data, Open Science
“Executive departments and agencies with over
$100 million in annual extramural R&D budgets
must develop a public access plan for the results of
research–meaning scientific publications and
digital scientific data–directly arising from their
funds.”
- White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy Memo, Feb. 2013

10. Proponents
SPARC
Alliance for Taxpayer Access
National Institutes of Health
Other Government Agencies

11. Opponents

12. The free, immediate,
and unrestricted access
to research will
accelerate innovation,
helping to reduce global
inequity and empower
the world’s poorest
people to transform
their own lives.

14. Explicit Policy Goals
“Scientific research supported by the Federal Government
catalyzes innovative breakthroughs that drive our economy.
The results of that research become the grist for new insights
and are assets for progress in areas such as health, energy,
the environment, agriculture, and national security.”
- Holdren, OSTP Memo, Feb. 2013
-

15. Policy Efficiency
Compliance Problems
2008 56%(NIH estimate)
2011 37%awareness (Charbonneau and McGlone, 2013)
2012 NIH began withholding future funding
2013 National Library of Medicine’s Public Access Compliance Monitor

16. Policy Effectiveness
Citation Impact Measures
70 studies on citation frequency of open vs. closed research articles (SPARC 2015)
● 66% (46) significantly advantage to publishing open
● 24% (17) no advantage to publishing open
● 10%(7) inconclusive

20. Recommendations for Policy Improvements
✔✔ Consider ways to assess a potential decrease the embargo period
✔✔ Incentivize agencies to increase compliance by improving systems and ease
burden on researchers

21. Recommendations for Higher Education Leaders
Educate faculty and research compliance offices
Pay attention to:
● OA initiatives globally
● Institutional OA mandates
● Disciplinary OA environments
● Non-government funder OA mandates
● Current Whitehouse administration

22. Selected References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2017, March 23). Historical trends in federal R&D.
Retrieved April 14, 2017, from https://www.aaas.org/page/historical-trends-federal-rd
Basken, P. (2012, November 19). NIH to begin enforcing open-access policy on research it supports. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.chronicle.com/article/NIH-to-Begin-
Enforcing/135852/
CENDI. (n.d.). Implementation of public access programs in federal agencies. Retrieved April 3, 2017, from
https://cendi.gov/projects/Public_Access_Plans_US_Fed_Agencies.html
Charbonneau, D. H., &McGlone, J. (2013). Faculty experiences with the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
public access policy, compliance issues, and copyright practices. Journal of the Medical Library
Association, 101(1), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.101.1.004
Dunn, W. N. (2017). Evaluating policy performance. In Public Policy Analysis: An Integrated Approach, 6th
ed. (pp. 320-346). Boston: Routledge.

23. Selected References, continued
Holdren, J. P. (2013). Increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research. Washington, D.C.: Office of
Science and Technology Policy. Retrieved from
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf
Joseph, H. (2008). A question of access--evolving policies and practices. Journal of Library Administration, 48(1), 95–106.
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., and Mongeon, P. (2015) The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLoS ONE 10(6).
10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
Mooney, C. (2017, Oct. 16). Trump has taken longer to name a science adviser than any modern president. The Washington
Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/16/trump-has-taken-longer-to-
name-a-science-adviser-than-any-modern-president/
Schimmer, R., Geschuhn, K. K., &Vogler, A. (2015). Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary
large-scale transformation to open access. https://doi.org/10.17617/1.3
SPARC. (2015). The open access citation advantage service. Retrieved February 6, 2017, from http://sparceurope.org/oaca/

24. Selected References, continued
Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., &Hartgerink, C. H. J. (2016). The
academic, economic and societal impacts of open access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research, 5.
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3
Van Noorden, R. (2013, July 2). NIH sees surge in open-access manuscripts. Retrieved from
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/07/nih-sees-surge-in-open-access-manuscripts.htm
Van Noorden, R. (2014). Funders punish open-access dodgers. Nature News, 508(7495), 161.
https://doi.org/10.1038/508161a
Van Noorden, R. (2017b). Science journals permit open-access publishing for Gates Foundation scholars.
Nature News. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2017.21486
Wojick, D. (2012, January 6). My Argument for Public Access to Research Reports. Retrieved from
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/01/06/my-argument-for-public-access-to-research-reports/
Wojick, D. (2017, Jan. 25). Tracking Trump. Retrieved from
http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2017/01/tracking-trump.html

25. Questions?
Kelly M. Broughton
broughtk@ohio.edu
Thank you!