TY - JOUR
T1 - The NIH Public Access Policy and Federally Funded Research
T2 - An Analysis of Problem Recognition and Agenda Setting
AU - McGuigan, Glenn S.
N1 - Funding Information:
The scientific journal publishing industry, as a segment of the larger industry of publishing, encompasses the creation, review, packaging and distribution of knowledge and/or information in multiple formats for use mainly by academic and scientific consumers. In terms of segments, out of a total of $38.4 billion for the U.S. industry in 2013, the academic and professional scientific journal publishing industry constitutes 28.8% of revenues ( IBISWorld, 2013, p. 5 ). While many of the primary consumers are assumed to be individual scholars and students at colleges and universities (who actually “consume” the content by reading and referencing the material), in many cases academic libraries serve as the intermediary between the publishers and consumers by paying for the content and facilitating access to the published material. The developments in information technology have caused the container of information to change from the paper issues to the electronic format. Scientific research and development in the United States generates revenue of approximately $134 billion in 2013, with the federal government accounting for 61.3% of industry revenue (IBIS World, 2013, p. 17). Defense research accounts for a large portion of that revenue, but official figures are not available. With the exception of biomedical and defense research, most federally funded research is supported by federal agencies such as the National Science Foundation ( United States Congress.House.Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations & Oversight, 2012, p. 2 ). In terms of authorship in scholarly publications, the U.S. remains the largest player but China continues to increase its scholarly production ( The Royal Society, 2011, p. 14 ).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2013 Elsevier Inc.
Copyright:
Copyright 2015 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2015/1/1
Y1 - 2015/1/1
N2 - This interpretive and descriptive study examines the development of the U.S. National Institute of Health's (NIH) public access policy which requires NIH funded research to be made publicly available through an open access depository, the PubMed Central database. Using elements of Kingdon's (2003) multiple streams framework, Stone's (2012) challenges to the theory of free market efficiency, and her rhetorical characterization of "good weak interests" vs. "bad strong interests," this work explores the rationale behind the development of the NIH open access policy Based upon this rationale and the current structure of the scholarly publishing system, future implications for other federally or publicly funded research are proposed.
AB - This interpretive and descriptive study examines the development of the U.S. National Institute of Health's (NIH) public access policy which requires NIH funded research to be made publicly available through an open access depository, the PubMed Central database. Using elements of Kingdon's (2003) multiple streams framework, Stone's (2012) challenges to the theory of free market efficiency, and her rhetorical characterization of "good weak interests" vs. "bad strong interests," this work explores the rationale behind the development of the NIH open access policy Based upon this rationale and the current structure of the scholarly publishing system, future implications for other federally or publicly funded research are proposed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84920181016&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84920181016&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.acalib.2014.09.014
DO - 10.1016/j.acalib.2014.09.014
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84920181016
SN - 0099-1333
VL - 41
SP - 54
EP - 60
JO - Journal of Academic Librarianship
JF - Journal of Academic Librarianship
IS - 1
ER -