The US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has revised its draft regulations to reform the way federal agencies use peer review before releasing scientific information to the public. Here's an excerpt from Sidney Shapiro's analysis of the revised draft:
OMB's new version of its Peer Review Guidelines is better, but still not good. The new guidelines eliminate some of the most egregious problems of the original proposal, particularly in terms of stacking panels with industry representatives. But the system it would impose on regulatory agencies is insufficiently transparent, and still encourages agencies to avoid open government requirements. And at its core the guidelines continue to reflect OMB’s failure to grasp the difference between private research and publishing and government information. Government activity has a unique obligation to be transparent, so that public can know what is being done its name. These guidelines continue to fail that test because the processes it imposes will remain too secretive.
My recommendation: either submit your comments on the revised draft before May 28 or use the OMBWatch web form to ask the OMB to extend the public comment period.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 5/19/2004 11:10:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
