The National Institute of Justice in the U.S. Department of Justice recently asked people to comment on the agency’s plans to increase public access to its research publications and data resources.

In recognition of International Open Access Week, I am posting the comment I submitted in response to the Federal Register last week.

________________________________

From: Jeffrey Butts
Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2024 3:39 PM
To: public.access.nij@usdoj.gov
Subject: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, [OJP (NIJ) Docket No. 1826]

The National Institute of Justice requested public comments via an announcement in the Federal Register asking readers to help make justice research and data resources more accessible to the public. The intentions of NIJ are commendable, but they fall short. Many of the questions asked in the announcement and the framing of the entire issue reflect an outdated view of research dissemination. 

Increasing public access to NIJ-sponsored research will require revolution and not merely reform. Certainly, it should be considered a misuse of public funds for researchers to produce scientific findings with government grants and contracts and then hide the results behind the paywalls of private publishers’ websites. Simply supporting “open access,” however, is not enough.  

The costs to access paywalled research are not trivial. Publishers charge fees ranging from $30 to $50 to read one journal article created from an NIJ-supported research project. Academics themselves, of course, are less concerned with these fees. Their colleges and universities cover such costs as part of the campus library system. Many academics value “open access” publications, but to make publications open access, researchers or their employers must pay for the privilege — often $2,000 to $3,000 per article.

The NIJ announcement focuses on “peer-reviewed” research, which is a mere subset of the research universe. Academic institutions once used the term “peer-reviewed” as a synonym for serious and credible. Corporate publishers relied on the pro bono reviews of academic peers as a cost-effective means of pre-publication screening. Traditional peer review, however, is often less thorough and less exacting than the professional line editing and quality assurance now performed by government agencies and research contractors. Respected entities like the RAND Corporation, the Pew Research Center, and RTI International produce a lot of rigorous research without the oversight of private publishing corporations. Peer review is a marketing term used by academics and their historically paper-based publishers, but it is not an accurate way to distinguish reliable research from unreliable research.

Researchers and government sponsors once depended on paper-based publishers to manufacture and disseminate research products. Private publishers managed editing and quality control by drawing on the volunteer labor of academic peers willing to provide such services, perhaps to ensure their participation in the broader publishing industry that governed access to academic advancement, recognition, and prestige.

All these practices were understandable in 1980, but this is not 1980. There is no longer any reason to accommodate the processes and customs of the paper-based publishing industry. All government-funded research should be available to the public free of charge on the internet. Thorough editing and rigorous quality control remain essential, but those services could be managed by networks of nonprofit organizations and academic membership groups supported by government grants rather than by private, profit-seeking corporations.

Getting from here to there will not be simple, but if future policy is to be shaped by public analysis of relevant and reliable research evidence, we have to start the journey.

Dr. Jeffrey Butts
Research Professor and Director,
Research and Evaluation Center
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
City University of New York
Desk: 212.237.8486  
Mobile: 917.520.4701
jbutts@jjay.cuny.edu 
https://JeffreyButts.net