II.6.2 "published research findings"

Although some research organizations have taken the position that publication should mean only "publication in a scientific journal after formal peer review," CRE believes that this definition is too narrow. Under such a restrictive definition, award recipients would be able to avoid disclosure of data otherwise available to the public merely by failing to submit the data to a formal peer review publication. Studies and conclusions cited in support of a federal government action that are either unpublished or published in a non-peer reviewed journal should also be made available for public scrutiny. Indeed, it is precisely this type of study that most warrants thorough examination by the public. As Senator Shelby's Legislative Director stated at the February 26, 1999, AAAS/Federal Focus conference, "If data is good enough to underlie a federal rule, study, [or] action . . . then it's good enough for public consumption."

On the opposite end of the spectrum, every willful, pro-active release of results or conclusions by a scientist to the public domain could, in a real sense, be characterized as "publication". While some would argue that this definition is overly broad, we nevertheless believe that in many cases the need for access to data will arise well before research papers are officially accepted for publication in a peer reviewed scientific or technical journal.

Consider, for example, posters displayed at scientific conferences. In deciding whether these materials constitute "publication" for purposes of the A-110 disclosure rules, one seemingly reasonable position would be that they should not, because the posters have not undergone full peer review. On the other hand, such materials are often publically displayed, and the conclusions they present have been relied upon in some cases by government officials in developing policy. We believe that researchers in such settings should be responsible for labeling posters or similar materials as "not for reference" if the conclusions they present are too tentative to merit public confidence.

Scientists have a choice in their publication behaviors, and they should be responsible for the choices they make. A study is either sufficiently grounded in fact and supported by evidence to justify a conclusion or it is not. Members of the research community should not be guaranteed a right to issue unchallengeable conclusory statements, with full knowledge that government officials may use the conclusions presented therein, while their studies remain shielded from the scrutiny of other scientists.

CRE recognizes scientists' need for forums where preliminary, incomplete studies may be discussed. We favor open discussion as part of the scientific process. The government, however, would be ill-advised to base federal policy on scientific studies that are so tentative in their conclusions that they cannot withstand the rigor of public ventilation and criticism. Scientists should therefore be required to alert the government (and others) to the limitations of their research under such circumstances. Readers of studies should be able to assume that any limitation that is not mentioned in the research does not exist.

CRE therefore offers the following, moderately inclusive definition of "publication" and urges that OMB include such a definition in the revised Circular A-110. In order to satisfy this element of the definitional prerequisites, one of the following indicia of "publication" must have occurred:

1. Any presentation at a scientific meeting open to the public, including posters or recorded comments;
2. Any written or oral testimony or comments (either in person or submitted for the record) that presents scientific results in connection with any regulatory, legislative or legal proceedings;
3. Any press release to or comments to media where scientific results are presented;
4. Any research paper accepted for publication in a scientific or technical journal, other periodical, or book; or
5. Any published patent application or patent.

Note, with respect to the fourth alternative criterion for publication above, that materials "in print" would be considered to have already been "published" for data access purposes. Considering that (1) such materials have already been accepted for publication, (2) the "in print" statement by the author of the work is, in fact, a disclosure, and (3) in their supporting documents, federal decision makers frequently cite to studies that are still "in print", there is no logical reason to exclude such studies merely on the basis that the relevant journal issue has not been released for sale. Whatever material is available for use by regulators should also be made available for public access.

Provision should also be made in the definition of "published research finding" for an exemption based on the prominent announcement or display of the following (or comparable) statement accompanying any putative publication:

This study and the preliminary conclusions stated therein is presented for discussion purposes only and should not be cited as authority by any government office or in any agency or similar proceeding. The research does not allow conclusions of sufficient scientific certainty to serve as a basis for public policy or rules.