The request from Congress to OSTP for another report is very interesting, albeit unsurprising, and, indeed, leads to more questions. A couple questions that come to mind for me: 1. Do we think Congress wants a “better report” because a) it is concerned about the potential costs and burdens that get passed along to researchers in the scenario of more journals flipping to gold OA? Or b) Congress is concerned about the impact on publishers and their options and timelines for diversifying revenue streams (which was already at issue, just without the timeline presented by the 2022 memo)? Or is it both, i.e., Congress is continuing to press OSTP for reports because they are, in a very good faith way, thinking about the implications for all corners of the research community as well as the public good? 1. Thinking about what agencies will do if the 2022 memo doesn’t survive the 100 day challenge is very intriguing, especially following the investment of time and resources in disseminating versions of plans, conducting listening sessions, etc. At my institution, we hear from researchers everyday, with and without funding that comes with any kind of public access requirement, who are seeking affordable ways to publish OA. If we are working toward a scholarly communication ecosystem that provides access to read and access to publish then perhaps there is a way to think about a pause on the memo as something that buys us all more time as we are working through the complex problem of enabling public access to historically commodified content… but would it also remove the impetus to meaningfully solve the problem with attention to, again, the public good? Or, is it inconsequential? On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 7:51 PM Angela Cochran <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > OSTP has done two financial analyses, both they admit are based on > assumptions and incomplete data. The first was released with the Nelson > memo (not 90 days before like Congress requested) and the second was done > in response to Congressional inquiry. The second did not offer anything > drastically different than the first. Many publishers (myself included) via > public comments and private communications have stressed that OSTP is > grossly underestimating the cost of the policy changes in the likely event > that most journals flip to gold OA in the next 7-10 years. It would appear > that members of Congress would like a better report. The larger question in > my mind is whether agencies will continue to change their policies even if > OSTP stands down. At that point it becomes an annual budget fight for the > agencies and Congress. It also means that agencies can temper the demands > if the memo can be ignored. > > Angela Cochran > VP, Publishing > ASCO > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2024 at 1:44 PM Anne Stone < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Will the implementation of the Nelson memo be on hold after June 10, >> 2024? >> Is anyone on this list working in OSTP/agencies on a report newly >> required by approapriations committee? (due June 10th from what i can tell) >> >> In trying to track down the latest status of NIH/NSF policy for whether >> funding for OA publishing will be allowed to support compliance with Nelson >> memo, I spotted this >> Posted March 3, 2024 - Appropriations Committee Press Release: >> https://appropriations.house.gov/news/press-releases/appropriations-committees-release-first-fy24-package >> >> It appears that advocates for removing the language barring use of funds >> for OA publishing (Section 552) has been successful , but seems to have >> been replaced with the language below. It calls for an in-depth financial >> analysis of impact of the Nelson memo in 100 days. I recently saw something >> indicating that the report was attempted (as directed in HR 117-395), but >> there wasn't enough publicly available data to understand in-depth >> financials (can't recall where, jogging any bells for anyone else?) >> >> Open Access.-The agreement directs OSTP to produce an in-depth financial >> analysis of the August 25, 2022, Memorandum to Executive Departments and >> Agencies titled, "Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to >> Federally Funded Research" including the policy's anticipated impact on >> Federal research investments, research integrity, and the peer review >> process, as was previously directed in House Report 117-395, *no later than >> 100 days after the enactment of this act.* If OSTP fails to provide the >> Committees with the report within 100 days, then OSTP must pause >> implementation of the memorandum until the agency produces the report. (I >> calculate June 10 as latest date for report.) >> >> Here is the link to HR 117-395 >> >> https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/117th-congress/house-report/395/1?s=1&r=27 >> see Open Access Publishing of Scientific Research. >> >> ######################################################################## >> >> Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives: >> https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L >> >> To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: >> [log in to unmask] >> >> ######################################################################## >> > > > -- > Angela Cochran > > > ------------------------------ > > Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives > <https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L> > > To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: > [log in to unmask] > -- Alexa L. Pearce Associate University Librarian for Research University of Michigan Library ORCID: 0000-0002-7185-6485 <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7185-6485> she | her | hers ######################################################################## Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives: https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to: [log in to unmask] ########################################################################