All Science Papers to be free in EU


All Scientific papers to be free by 2020 under EU proposals

Results of research supported by public and public-private funds set to be made freely available to all

All publicly funded scientific papers published in Europe could be made free to access by 2020, under a “life-changing” reform ordered by the European Union’s science chief, Carlos Moedas.

The Competitiveness Council, a gathering of ministers of science, innovation, trade and industry, agreed on the target following a two-day meeting in Brussels last week.

The move means publications of the results of research supported by public and public-private funds would be freely available to and reusable by anyone. It could affect the paid-for subscription model used by many scientific journals, and undermine the common practice of releasing reports under embargo.

At present the results of some publicly funded research are not accessible to people outside universities and similar institutions without one-off payments, which means that many teachers, doctors, entrepreneurs and others do not have access to the latest scientific insights. In the UK, funding bodies generally require that researchers publish under open access terms, with open access publishing fees paid from the researcher’s grant.

The council said this data must be made accessible unless there were well-founded reasons for not doing so, such as intellectual property rights or security or privacy issues.

The changes are part of a broader set of recommendations in support of Open Science, a concept that also includes improved storage of and access to research data.

In the UK we have already been told that all papers (to be used n research assessment excersise and so will knock on to everything published) have to be open access within 3 months of acceptence…yes acceptence….and this could be months before publication….by April 2017 and 3 months of publication from April 2016. 

This won’t be the format published in the journal because that has copyright issues but they are a final version. These are to be depositied to the university library and are put into their open access repository.
The 3 months from acceptence is bonkers as many journal take more than 3 months to publish the Evariant but thems the rules

If you look at our publications in the tabs above, the open access version will have a link added to the title of the publication.

About the author



  • This should have been done years ago. It will aid in someone coming up with novel ideas and different perspectives on diseases with earlier cures. I wish that the largest pharmaceutical companies had to play by the same rules. A cure for something, like MS, likely would be already solved if they shared all of their information all along but then again they are not worried about the patient or the disease, rather their stockholders. If the government made it mandatory that they share all their information, positive and negative, to get approval of their drug worldwide, Pharma would change their tune abruptly.

    • Once submitted to EMA the data can be obtained by freedom of information requests. Once made pharma depositing them do not have too long to object. We have done this recently.

      The dilemma is, if something is interesting but has not yet surfaced in the academic media how best is it to publish the results within. Pharma may be happy if it is good news as it saves them paying a writer. Someone's nose goes out of joint because their potential paper is gone, but should we care if it has taken them years and they still haven't published it, but what happens when this is something the marketing department has not wanted to bring to your attention.

      I can think of a few things that have been air brushed away, not completely hidden and put in meeting abstracts but the data has not surfaced in a publication and therefore does not exist in the minds of many neuros.

  • In the US, for publicly-funded biomedical research, NIH rules are 12 months from publication and it's freely accessible, not necessarily open access. Private foundations have their own rules. Gates requires publication in open access journals, but will pay all author fees. However, this limits researchers to a subset of OA journals.

    • Open access is great in principle but it has spawned alot of rubbish journals simply added to the cost of research £1,000-3,000. The high impact journals are laughing they get your work for free and then charge you to publish.
      So if you have a paper monster who churns out meta analysis of the week every week it can soon add up.

      The good journals have created ejournals so as they reject your paper for the print journal impact x, you can have quick review in e journal. They make on the fee.

      These journals make it into indexing but there are many ejournals that don't pay for this.
      They invite you submit a paper and then charge you the publication fee.

      The UK government insists on open access for their funded papers so for every paper that is a few grand spent, which could go on research. Why not make an open access journal called british university work one, two and three and core fund it.

      Anyway a different system in coming and the libraries at universities will curate open access papers and I am sure each library will take on staff to do this,

  • I've been following her too. Elsevier keeps trying to take her down. Every time they succeed in closing down one URL, she pops up with another. The latest is through an anonymous web browser. I think it's Tor.

  • I wrote the following a few weeks ago but either it went into the spam folder or didn't pass moderation. I think some MSers would be interested to know this.

    There a free way the general public can access 10+ million research papers, including MS research papers. Through 'Access to Research' at their local public library in the UK. We can read the article at the library but not download it on to disc or USB stick. Do a web search.

By MouseDoctor



Recent Posts

Recent Comments