NIH Public Access Plan
Additionally, the ACR authored and will lead a resolution titled “NIH Public Access Plan” to raise awareness of possible unintended negative consequences of the planned National Institutes of Health (NIH) pathway. The resolution is cosponsored with 10 other specialty societies. The resolution, if passed, would direct the AMA to work with professional organizations, such as the ACR and other specialty societies, and Congress to raise awareness of and mitigate possible adverse consequences of the proposed NIH Public Access Plan to ensure continued equitable access to quality clinical research.
The concerns of the ACR and other specialty societies stem from changes directed in 2022 by the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP), which established new guidance for public access to scholarly publications and data resulting from federally supported research. The OSTP directive requires that peer-reviewed scholarly publications containing any content derived from federal funding, including data on which a study is based, be made immediately available, at no cost, by the end of 2025. This reverses a 2013 policy permitting manuscripts to remain behind a subscription paywall for a one-year period before being accessible for free. The AMA previously had policy that it would work with organizations and Congress to prevent any changes to this policy that would allow public release of NIH research articles within 12 months of publication.
The groups recognize the policy’s intended benefit of making new knowledge as described in published scientific manuscripts immediately available to researchers, scientists and the lay public without a subscription, which in theory could improve efforts to replicate results and the faster application of new scientific and clinical knowledge. However, they also recognize that the NIH plan as proposed might not achieve these goals, due to several likely unintended consequences related to significant changes in business models. These include potential negative consequences in the areas of equity, quality, peer review, scientific record oversight, financial sustainability and the future of scientific research.
In particular, there are concerns the pathway as currently proposed by NIH will encourage a pay-to-publish model that may create substantial inequity in terms of who is able to contribute to the body of peer-reviewed, published scientific research. Necessary changes to business models will likely shift financial responsibility from subscribers to the researchers seeking to have their research published, creating substantial additional barriers for those seeking publication. Many researchers, including junior scientists, who often have limited funds, will find these fees prohibitive. When funds are unavailable, publishing completed work will be delayed or abandoned, hindering the dissemination of new knowledge—precisely the opposite of the desired policy goals.
