281–290 of 293 posts
This sounds wonderful; I'm super supportive. But, is there anyone who can articulate the trade-offs without the snark? Are there research groups that benefited from the revenue who will now have to raise even more funds? What's made it take so long? (Beyond just "entrenched interests...")
This is the first thing I've seen that could count as a signature achievement for this administration. This is actually pretty big and will have very positive follow-on consequences in terms of future innovation.
> the free material could also include work funded by the national endowments for the arts and humanities. I wonder what kind of papers or other works come out of National Endowment for the Arts that site behind paywalls? Do museum admissions charges count as paywalls?
> I wonder what kind of papers or other works come out of National Endowment for the Arts that site behind paywalls? They do a lot of preservation work, so maybe they fund preservation-related research.
Just to clarify some things: - this is similar to how it works in the EU now - depositing the final accepted author version (without journal editors' final typesetting / grammar corrections) into a publicly accessible repository seems to be within these guidelines - open access publishing is typically much more expensive than the closed model for the researchers. Open access fees can be between several hundred and se…
I'm concerned that this will do nothing but result in fewer government awards and make non-governmental research more difficult to access. This directive still allows journals to charge open access publishing fees, which often exceed 12,000k, and allow grantees to add this to their grants, resulting in fewer grants. In addition, there will be no upper limit on open access fees, so privately funded research will essen…
so you're saying this doesn't change anything with regards to fees, how will it then lead to a decrease in grants?
Currently the government ranks all grant applications, and funds everyone until it runs out of money. Under the new system it will run out of money sooner -- especially for smaller grant programs for early career grad students and undergrads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
so you're saying this doesn't change anything with regards to fees, how will it then lead to a decrease in grants?
Currently government funded research is either open access (and pays the fee) or is closed access for 1 year then becomes open (and is not subject to fees). Now all government research will have to pay open access fees, and the new guidance allows them to request additional funding for open access fees. Currently the government ranks all grant applications, and funds everyone until it runs out of money. Under the new…
that makes sense, they should charge less, or none, and we should fund more
Great! How about we reduce the cost of college by eliminating the equally parasitical textbook industry?
That's pretty much entirely in the hands of the universities and professors. To a large degree this is really a US-specific problem, US textbooks are easily 2-3 times as expensive as elsewhere. And the cause is likely that US universities require specific textbooks for courses, which is not how it works e.g. in Germany where I studied. I had a single course that required a specific textbook, which cost like ~50 EUR a…
Seems like the only way that’s work is if the teacher provided all necessary info and books were only supplemental.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US military funds a lot of basic and applied research that is openly published. DARPA is one agency that does this. But separately there is classified research that isn't published.
I am referring military R&D as an academic topic, not a funding source. So the classified stuff.
Take a new program like "FELIX" - simplifying ways of checking for bioengineered threats.
IARPA funds that, and the research funded through that program can be found here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47&q=N66...
From the look of it they funded 9 companies and institutions to do the research and their poster presentations can be found at the bottom of [1].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If one red cent of taxpayer money goes to it, the taxpayer should get it for free. Hopefully the trend continues. I wouldn't go this far. Part of the current revolution in the private space industry is precisely allowing companies to own products that were partially funded by taxpayer dollars. As it encourages companies to fund their own money into it, rather than simply relying 100% on government funding. Further…
Yep, that is how the Chinese government and industry has gotten so far ahead in Flow Batteries: https://www.opb.org/article/2022/08/03/the-u-s-made-a-breakt...
> Forever Energy, a Bellevue, Wash., based company, is one of several U.S. companies that have been trying to get a license from the Department of Energy to make the batteries. Joanne Skievaski, Forever Energy's chief financial officer, has been trying to get hold of a license for more than a year and called the department's decision to allow foreign manufacturing "mind boggling."