NASA Requires You To Pay To See Mars Curiosity Results (update)
Keith’s note: NASA has spent $2 billion on Curiosity. But NASA allows researchers to post the research results – results paid for by taxpayers – behind a paywall at Science. You have to pay twice if you want to see what has been discovered. Too bad NASA is not interested in following OSTP guidelines on Open Data, Transparency, etc.
Keith’s update: Note: the papers from the 24 January issue of Science are now also online here at JPL (some are listed as being from 9 Dec 2013) with the warning “This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only.”. With two exceptions, if you go to Science magazine (see links below) which is what all the public statements would prompt you to do, Science still requires payment in order to read the articles.
This posting of the papers at NASA.gov is a good step forward, but NASA really doesn’t tell you that the papers are even online at NASA.gov. Nothing in the website menu leads you to think they are online and nothing is included in press releases. There is another list of other papers but all of them require steep fees in order to read in full.
If only NASA made ALL of the research it conducts with taxpayer funds openly available, and then prominently featured these papers so as to overtly tell people that these papers are online, then the agency would see the greatest possible use of these discoveries.
– Ancient Aqueous Environments at Endeavour Crater, Mars (text available for free)
– Habitability, Taphonomy, and the Search for Organic Carbon on Mars (text available for free
– In Situ Radiometric and Exposure Age Dating of the Martian Surface (payment required for access)
– Volatile and Organic Compositions of Sedimentary Rocks in Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars (payment required for access)
– Mars’ Surface Radiation Environment Measured with the Mars Science Laboratory’s Curiosity Rover (payment required for access)
– Elemental Geochemistry of Sedimentary Rocks at Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars (payment required for access)
– Mineralogy of a Mudstone at Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars (payment required for access)
– A Habitable Fluvio-Lacustrine Environment at Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars (payment required for access)
Increasing Access to the Results of Federally Funded Scientific Research, OSTP
“The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) hereby directs each Federal agency with over $100 million in annual conduct of research and development expenditures to develop a plan to support increased public access to the results of research funded by the Federal Government. This includes any results published in peer-reviewed scholarly publications that are based on research that directly arises from Federal funds, as defined in relevant OMB circulars (e.g., A-21 and A-11).”
– NASA Hides Science Behind Paywalls, earlier post
– NASA paywalls first papers arising from Curiosity rover, I am setting them free, Michael Eisen, earlier post
http://authors.library.calt…
It took me two minutes to find it guys. The other one is probably not out yet because it came out 8 hours ago.
The articles are online. I have seen them. Indeed, I linked to them. But you need a paid subscription to Science to read them (I have one – it is not cheap).
You chose one part of the OTSP provisions though, here is the part right underneath.
i) shall use a twelve-month post-publication embargo period as a guideline for making research papers publicly available; however, an agency may tailor its plan as necessary to address the objectives articulated in this memorandum, as well as the challenges and public interests that are unique to each field and mission combination…
And since the first journal article is already out and was only published online on Dec 9th 2013, that means we got it within 6 weeks. Much quicker time than suggested by the OTSP. NASA Is ahead of the curve here. I agree it would be nice to get it instantly but in this case you are incorrect in your article.
You do not need a subscription to see them, you just need patience.
You seem to be missing the point. The only way that you can read the entire article is if you pay Science magazine to have access to it. You DO need a subscription. Try this link and see what you get http://www.sciencemag.org/c…
I get the entire article? I’m not sure what your point is Keith.
I’m not trying to come down on you either, but your article is not right. I do not have to pay Science magazine anything, I can merely wait for the author to post it freely or wait until the 12 months is up and then they have to post it freely. Usually JPL is very quick with releasing their journal articles however, within a few months.
You seem to be having an argument with someone other than me. The full article is only available if you pay to access it. THAT is what I said. You are babbling on about waiting 12 months – I am talking about gaining full access NOW. You made your point.
I have full access to the two article I tried via the Caltech page. It does not look like in the science journal, but it is the full article, with the the schemes in the second part and the text in the first. Why has the access to the article to be directly through the page of science? Is this only to make the point that NASA is doing wrong?
I agree with stonemoma. The articles are available, the authors are following normal practices, and Science has the right to charge for the article. Data and publication embargoes are common. No one really has the right to see anything immediately.
NASA makes very strong efforts to make data and publications easily available. Many satellite data are even available near-real-time. I don’t see any fault from NASA here or the authors here.
G.
Everyone who pays for this research should have equal access to the results. They should not have to pay or wait months or years for that access.
Everyone who pays for this research should have equal access to the results. Period
The article by Grotzinger is freely available on the caltech website in complete form. Current US law permits authors of research funded by tax dollars to independently post pdf copies of their research papers exactly as they appear in the journal on their own websites outside the journal paywall, just as Dr. Grotzinger has done. So all you have to do is call the authors of the other papers and persuade them to do likewise. It isn’t that big a compromise; it just recognizes that the author, even if he/she is government funded, has some say in the matter.
This is NASA’s job. They are clearly not interested.
It was $95/yr last time I renewed, in 2007, before the crash. And well worth it.
It is almost $300 now.
I agree with Keith that scientific papers should be freely and immediately available. The best way for authors who agree to make this happen is to publish in one of the excellent journals that provide unrestricted access, such as the PLOS family. And while we’re at it, we should cite journals that are freely available as well. Hey, here’s one: http://www.plosone.org/arti…
That requires funding bodies, grant committees, etc, to recognise open publication as or above closed publications. Currently traditional closed publication gets much more “cred” than any open publication.
And the only way for that practice to change is for people to continue to complain whenever closed publications are given any kind of priority; especially over government (taxpayer-funded) research. If enough people push hard enough, and refuse to accept sort-of/kind-of compromises by people who seem to completely miss the point, eventually we might see government-wide policies specifically favouring open publication.
I agree in part, but the author decides where to send his paper. Some of the top scientific discoveries of the last few years have appeared in PLOS One, which is freely available online. The article i linked above was by a NASA researcher. If authors publish in and cite open access journals, they will become the ones that funding organizations pay attention to.
As to funding agencies, they tend to use shortcuts like looking at how many publications an author has and where they appeared rather than actually reading the papers. That’s one of the reasons NASA research leaves something to be desired.
Personally I’d never heard of this PLOS family. And based on the numbers of views and citations identified in the couple of the articles that I looked at, I would have to say it really does not reach too many people so not too many others have heard of it either.
I disagree with the idea that “scientific papers should be freely and immediately available”. Peer review is done to make sure that research is bona fide, properly constructed, formatted, identified quoted sources or references; it is aimed to ensure that the paper describes research that meets the criteria of genuine useful research. Otherwise anyone could “publish” anything and call it research.
There is prestige in getting a research paper into a recognized journal like Science, or Nature, or Acta Astronautica, or any of a number of other bona fide journals, some specific to their associated fields, that go through a genuine vetting process and that reach millions of people and particularly that reach scientists and academics in related fields. There is not much prestige in getting a paper into something that is not widely recognized, gets it “published” in a week or 2 on-line (it is likely there wasn’t much of a review) and that reaches only a few hundred or even a couple thousand people. If anyone can publish anything immediately and without review, then not only is the research likely to be unreliable but the prestige and value of publication is minimized. I might just as well upload my latest manuscript to NASAWatch.
Reviewers are volunteers. Editors, indeed the whole editorial board, are volunteers. Some journals additionally charge researchers by the page. What does Elsevier itself add, other than the name recognition of their journals?
It made sense to have subscription fees when journals were physically published, but PLOS shows that e-journals don’t need to have subscriptions. Same volunteers, same level of peer-review. The only reason they haven’t replaced subscription journals is that funding bodies are still giving priority to them when assigning grants. That is what needs to change.
Yeah, if you think it’s easy getting a paper into PLOS One I suggest you try it. The reviewers are tough, the only difference is they don’t evaluate “impact”, i.e. the number of citations for the journal that a paper has or will get.
“What does Elsevier itself add”
They provide a pretty good archival and retrieval system-quite reliable from my recent work.
I think Elsevier is the archival and distribution system and not the editorial review system.
Many journals do have paid editorial staffs and some paid staff that coordinate the reviews.
True if you look at individual random articles, since they may be on obscure subjects. But take a look at the total number of papers published and citations to the PLOS (Public Library of Science) journals and you’ll find it’s pretty impressive. Peer review for PLOS is quite tough with the sole exception that “impact”, i.e. publicity, is not a factor.
I was just looking at the articles you suggested. Suggest some that are not obscure, that are of significance, that have been viewed by tens or hundreds of thousands.
Not sure how many actual papers in Science have that wide a readership.
http://www.plosone.org/arti… 22,400 views
http://www.plosmedicine.org… 29,000 views
http://www.plosone.org/arti… 8500 views
http://www.plosmedicine.org… 78,779 views
I do want to point out that the essence of PLOS is that good science is what counts and impact contests like this should be irrelevant.
In Situ Radiometric and Exposure Age Dating of the Martian Surface
http://authors.library.calt…
Volatile and Organic Compositions of Sedimentary Rocks in Yellowknife Bay, Gale crater, Mars
http://authors.library.calt…
Mars’ Surface Radiation Environment Measured with the Mars Science Laboratory’s Curiosity Rover
http://authors.library.calt…
Elemental Geochemistry of Sedimentary Rocks at Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars
http://authors.library.calt…
Mineralogy of a Mudstone at Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars
http://authors.library.calt…
A Habitable Fluvio-Lacustrine Environment at Yellowknife Bay, Gale Crater, Mars
http://authors.library.calt…
Great for Caltech. Why aren’t all the other NASA-funded Mars papers as equally accessible – and why isn’t NASA putting this information into press releases?
NASA has (or had until recently) a mechanism to get publications on line and public. Authors/researchers did not always use the system.
One issue for some of us was that it required going through a management approval process. When managers started getting appointed who had far less education, experience or technical knowledge then I resisted getting management approval, especially when some collaborators and I worked for months, did the research, wrote the 40 page paper, then was told by one manager with absolutely no competence in the subject that “he didn’t want to say that”.
He wanted us to discard 38 of the 40 pages and essentially all of the research. We were somewhat distressed but ultimately decided we should publish the 2 page paper with a 38 page appendix of results. The paper was selected for presentation and publication.
Another time, the paper was assigned, some of us wrote it, and then during the review process I was told we should remove the actual authors’ names and instead give credit to the reviewers and other higher ups, none of whom had anything to do with the research or the paper.
These were never problems or issues until the last several years. It now seems to be a recurring theme.
Is some of the reason to slow down disemination globally for a bit?
Ask Hoagland 🙂
There is the argument that if we pay for it then the discoveries and papers should be available and free to every American taxpayer. That’s the easy explanation to all our ire. Give us our just desserts! This is a democratic country.
The underlying reason is that we are at an incredible crossroad of the information age, of dissemination and access to knowledge and the rights of the common man or woman. NASA discoveries and knowledge are already a World Heritage because of the fundamental openness of our society. However, our system does restrict and also exploits the dissemination of public information. The access to research papers that cost not just $2.5 Billion but actually the full cost of NASA are a significant weakness, a disgrace, an insult and disadvantage to our Nation.
This is all such a great problem. One must throw around lofty terms such as Time and Space to explain the problem. Space is no longer a problem to free access. There was a time when one had to travel some distance to reach the library or building of advanced studies to find such papers. Progress was slower then and one had time to seek out and compete. But now the low cost of electronics makes the immediate physical access hardly a hindrance to anyone in the World. So this leaves Time as the issue and why this blog entry exists.
Consider other questions. Does one need to own a student ID card to access paperback copies of these journals residing in college libraries? No, I could find a state institution and at least during school hours, walk in, sit down and read the NASA science papers now with hardly an eye being batted. There is the thought among intellectuals that there are those that have a need to know -quickly- and that for those individuals they effectively have the income and/or privileges (student IDs, work at institutions that provide group access) to gain the immediate access. Those intellectuals also think that for the rest of us, we can wait some weeks or even several months. The urgency of the details is not on a “need to know – quickly” basis. Pretty pictures and summaries for the under-educated will do. Then there is another thought that for those that fall through this net, they will find a way. Their opportunity to excel in a free society, those with an innate curiosity to understand will rise to the top and find their own way. It harkens back to the little boys in Harlem at the turn of the 20th Century, selling newspapers on corners, that dragged themselves out of poverty to become rich and famous.
We are just not democratic. We are capitalists and it includes academia. Time is money. Without the money we are left short of also time. Hundreds and thousands of similar papers to MSL’s and MER’s are published and if they are sold to the public, the quantities make electronic access a necessity and the shear inertia and advancement of human knowledge makes purchasing, even membership dues, a costly proposition. MSL is a $2.5 Billion mission but NASA and the pork barrel spending of $10s and $100s of Billions (despite being a democracy, we can hardly prevent it) are no less connected to the price paid by the American taxpayer for these scientific papers. If you are disgusted or disappointed in the number of Americans that still believe the World was created in six days about 10,000 years ago, then blame it also on this unjust means of dissemination of knowledge from public funds.
This issue of paying for the papers we pay many $Billions to have created also is linked to the NSA surveillance of public and private records. To the National Security Agency, there has been no limit to the access of information, knowledge through all forms of telecommunications by using $Billions of taxpayer funds to pay for it. To anyone’s phone call to any scientific paper, it is free and immediate to the NSA using our taxpayer money. So say it. “They are trying to protect the public from our enemies.” OK, so who amongst us – the under-educated, those that will never aspire to become an astronaut or a scientist, those that cannot spare $50 per month, are they enemies and duly underprivileged such that they do not deserve immediate access to NASA research papers?
Time is money and opportunity and information travels fast. In our competitive World, the free access of the latest information is critical to making one’s way through life. But this is not Jerry Maguire making his case for love of a woman. The survival and success of our civilization depends on giving everyone free access to all Human information. I think it is one big reason why the communist World fell – because they restricted access to Human knowledge. Right now, there are barriers in our communication age, our society, that are stripped bare by government agencies and then remain fast by other agencies. NASA has a responsibility to do what is right. Regardless of the scientists that are coached to moderate their air of elitism or a Griffin with his six advanced degrees unwilling to talk to Garver, NASA as a whole needs to take this issue the whole way and open all papers to immediate public access. Our nation is outnumbered 20 to 1, this is one thing that will help level the playing field and give us the chance to remain leaders, ones with the highest held virtues to lead a World forward.
How do I cite your paper, Rocky? 🙂
You mean cite my spit. I’ve been watching this post. Keith is right to bring this to light and keep it posted at top. I’m just a blue collar worker in overalls standing in a dusty crowd, listening to a union organizer. My words are a wad of spit just dropped between the speakers’ comments.
Yea. Just having a little fun. I am similarly a non-technical person- well, deeply interested but employed elsewhere.
If you are a student or professor in virtually any college, then your school usually has a subscription service to the major journals. Many companies and branches of government have the same kind of subscription service for their employees.
If you are a government employee who has prepared a paper on government time and if the project you worked on was paid for with government money then the paper is not copyrighted and may be freely distributed by anyone, including commercial firms, the PI, or NASA. NASA used to have a requirement, not universally enforced, that if a NASA employee wrote something of a technical nature pertaining to their NASA work it had to go through a review and approval process, and as part of that process it went into the National Space Science Distribution database (NSSDC) so that virtually anyone could pull it up and so that it was officially archived.
However none of this precludes a private or commercial entity limiting distribution of their publications by subscription or sale.
When the research is ONLY available from a private or commercial entity (which is almost always the case- this is an exception, BTW – for one journal) then taxpayers are denied access to research they have paid for.
Many journals (especially peer-reviewed) will not publish a paper if it has previously been made publicly available. So the timing might be that it needs to be selected for publication, and then published in a journal first, and subsequently entered into the government database for access. I know in some universities they embargo a paper for a period of up to 2 years in order to give the PI time to get the research published.
For anyone who has not been attached to a university in the last dozen years, if you get access to the university library system then you will find an entire intranet system of ebooks, publications, research reports, dissertations, journals…that are not otherwise or freely available. If you wonder why you do not usually see the good stuff with real detail on the internet, but always wind up with a Wikipedia article, this is why. You are not on the ‘right’ internet.
Everyone who pays for this research should have equal access to the results. Period.
Correcto mundo. I’m in Naples, Fl. Up until just a few years ago we had nothing beyond a community college within a hundred miles or so. Now it’s only about 35 miles and likely not to have these pieces.
Besides. Why do I need to go to a library to read this stuff that should be online? ALL of it, not just a few. I honestly don’t know why this is so hard for folks to grasp.
The conversation should center around the added value Science or Nature etc bring to the table, if any (aside from implicit prestige).
Physical distance has nothing to do with access to most colleges and universities or their resources. On line access is how a large proportion of college education is done. It sounds like you are stuck in the 20th century.
DISQUS missed (or Keith censored) my comment in which I said that if you’ve not been associated with a university in the last dozen years then you are probably unaware of the extensive availability of e-books, journals, publications that is available world-wide via the internet-maybe its more properly identified as an ‘intranet’. If you do a search and mainly come up with Wikipedia articles, then you are missing the good stuff.
Even if you are at a major institution that has a site subscription to Science, the journal is not free. You are paying for it through the overhead that drains so much of your meager grant before you even get started. And with the thousands of journals, the independent researcher has no way to keep up with them all. As literature has moved to the Internet the actual cost of publication has declined even as the price of subscriptions has increased. The value added by the journals is questionable, except for their artificial value in doling out prestige. Access to information has become a major obstacle to scientific research. It’s time to remember that science is supported by our taxes to benefit society.
Everyone who pays for this research should have equal access to the results – period.
And they hate it. They pay researchers to do the research and write the papers, researchers who volunteer as reviewers, editors, etc, and then they have to pay millions of dollars again every year to give their students access. And the academics hate it. Google “boycott elsevier”.
[Harvard pays $3.5m every year to carry subscription journals. God knows what the US government pays in total across its labs and institutions, and that is after paying to produce much of the content for Elsevier and others. How do you not get this? The only reason these universities and institutions subscribe to the journals is to get access the research that the same universities and institutions create.]
[[Edit: http://www.theguardian.com/… – ” Robert Darnton, director of Harvard Library told the Guardian: “I hope that other universities will take similar action. We all face the same paradox. We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices.
“The system is absurd, and it is inflicting terrible damage on libraries. One year’s subscription to The Journal of Comparative Neurology costs the same as 300 monographs. We simply cannot go on paying the increase in subscription prices. In the long run, the answer will be open-access journal publishing, but we need concerted effort to reach that goal.”
[…] David Prosser, executive director of Research Libraries UK (RLUK), said: “Harvard has one of the richest libraries in the world. If Harvard can’t afford to purchase all the journals their researchers need, what hope do the rest of us have?” “]]
Keith whereas the data is obviously owned by the tax payer I am don’t sure that the same can be said of the papers analyzing the data. I suspect that a lot of the scientists are paid by the universities out of their own funds and are hence ruled by that jurisdiction. A fine line maybe but I think a valid one.
I don’t know of any scientists that are paid by universities out of their own funds. Universities are run like businesses; to bring in money. Scientists normally have to pay the university out of their grants. It’s called overhead. In this case NASA is paying the cost of the research.
So those of us who mainly teach and do not have grants and who receive a paycheck from the university really are getting paid by someone else? And we really are not employees of the university?
I don’t think so.