Make your metadata more accessible with this virtual course

The European Accessibility Act (EAA) requires every e-book to have a description of its accessibility features. Confused about how to add this accessibility metadata to your publications? AIE and Fondazione LIA are offering an online training course that will get you up to speed on how to distribute and effectively display accessibility metadata throughout the publishing supply chain.

The course, ‘Accessibility metadata display: strategies for implementation,’ will take place on 24 March from 2:30-5:30 p.m. CET on Zoom. Registration is required, but STM members can get a €30 discount.

Turbulence in global digital regulation

The change in the US administration is having very palpable repercussions in the EU, where key digital regulation is meant to impose obligations on US tech giants (e.g., Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, AI Act). The ongoing discussions on the EU Code of Practice for AI companies, aimed at specifying concrete obligations to comply with the AI Act, are being directly influenced by the very tense context, which emboldened Google and Meta executives to come out strongly against the current draft of the Code. The Code is supposed to be finalised in April, and STM is contributing to the drafting process. The Trump administration, in turn, adopted a memo establishing that they will retaliate, should other countries be found to apply digital regulation that the US considers to effectively act as a “digital services tax“.

Canada releases draft OA policy

On 25 February, the Canadian government announced its draft revised OA policy, with details on how to submit comments online (through 31 March). STM expects to submit comments to the Tri-Agencies that govern research grants and encourages members to do so as well.

The draft policy requires:

  • Immediate access to ‘all agency-funded, peer-reviewed research articles published by agency-funded grantees and chairholders’
  • Deposit of the version of record (VoR) or accepted manuscript (AM) to a Canadian institutional repository with an open license, to be implemented through rights retention (if deposit conflicts with publisher policy, authors have the option to submit an author’s original (AO) to the repository)

The draft doesn’t mention paying for gold, but also doesn’t mention any restrictions on grant funds for publishing costs.

US science agencies and grant funding in disarray

The first month of the Trump Administration has been marked by staff cuts, funding freezes and a broad re-evaluation of the US government’s approach to science, science communications and funding. The full impact of these actions is unclear, and most are currently subject to legal challenges. Significant actions include:

We’ll keep monitoring the situation and engaging with policymakers and other stakeholders to support the research community.

Kratsios likely to be confirmed as OSTP Director

Michael Kratsios, the nominee to head the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), testified at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee on 25 February. The hearing was uneventful and indicates that his nomination will likely be confirmed in the coming weeks. AI was, of course, discussed, but issues related to copyright and intellectual property did not feature prominently, and public access was not mentioned.

AI literacy obligations now in effect

The AI Act’s requirements on AI literacy went into effect on 2 February, which means organisations providing or deploying general-use AI systems must now implement adequate literacy measures for their staff. This is one of the few provisions that apply to all providers and deployers of AI systems, regardless of the category of risk.

The Act defines AI literacy as skills, knowledge, and understanding that enable stakeholders to make an informed deployment of AI systems and gain awareness of the opportunities and risks of AI. Literacy measures for staff can include training and reporting mechanisms.

Wondering what to do next? This webinar from the AI Strategy Institute can help you get up to speed.

Comments on NSF public access policy still open

The US National Science Foundation is accepting comments through 10 February on their draft Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG).

As reported in December, the NSF outlined draft grant policies and procedures for 2026, including regulations to implement NSF’s Public Access Policy 2.0. The draft PAPPG includes a new requirement that grantees publish their results, provisions regarding paying publication and data sharing, license provisions and a claim that no payment is ever required to enable deposit of accepted manuscripts.

Despite a recent executive order that called for a pause on the finalisation of regulations, NSF is continuing to collect comments, but the implementation of a final PAPPG may be delayed significantly.

NIH draft plan for PIDs and metadata still open for comment

As previously reported, when NIH issued its final public access policy, it also issued a new draft Plan on Metadata and Persistent Identifiers (PIDs), with the goal to ‘enable researchers, clinicians, students and the public to rapidly locate, contextualise and analyse the results of NIH-supported research’. Such plans were requested from each agency as the second part of the OSTP Nelson memo.

The NIH has asked for public comments through 21 February. More information on the plan and how to provide comments can be found here. This plan is likely unaffected by the executive order regarding regulations.

Bracing for a broad impact from US executive orders and activities

The first days and weeks of the Trump administration brought an onslaught of developments that affect the research community and scholarly endeavours, including executive orders (EOs) on regulations and diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as memos regarding public statements (including publication) by health officials and others. These have the potential to impact researchers, funding opportunities and regulations quite broadly, although their full effect remains unclear.

The situation is quite fluid: this piece had to be rewritten several times, and new information may have come to light by the time you read this, so be sure to check your information.

Be assured that STM continues to monitor and evaluate their impact. Three broad categories of activity deserve your particular notice at this moment. 

First, an EO providing for a ‘regulatory freeze pending review’ directs agencies to pause the development of any new regulations and review any regulations that have been issued but not yet gone into effect. This would seem to apply to most public access policies as most are not due to go into effect before the end of the year. It will require a pause in those that have not been finalised (like the NSF PAPPG — see below) and a review for those that have (like the revised NIH public access policy).

Second, a memo directing agencies to ‘temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance’ was issued and then rescinded by the Administration. This temporarily paused all federal grants while it was in effect, but other memos and Executive Orders continue to partially block some funding (especially foreign aid and anything related to DEI). A separate previous memo to the Department of Health and Human Services led to the immediate cancellation of grant review panels and the communication of health information.

Third, the Administration appears to be targeting publications and scientific information it finds objectionable, including removing content from websites and ceasing the publication of key information. While much of the effort focuses on DEI, the scope appears broad. HHS had to clarify what appeared to be a total freeze on activities, including publication, but individual agencies differ in their approach. For example, CDC apparently ordered staff to withdraw all papers submitted to journals to allow for a review by the Trump administration. On the other hand, NIH researchers appear to be allowed to continue publishing, but “posting preprints, or unreviewed manuscripts, online is on hold.” At the same time, publications have disappeared from the Department of Energy’s repository OSTI, potentially in conflict with its public access policy. It is unclear if other publications or data have been removed elsewhere.

Taken together, these actions suggest a new level of political oversight of grants and research communication and raised considerable concern in the research community. However, it’s not clear how and if they will be implemented in the face of court action, Congressional response and ‘clarifications’ from the administration.

We’ll continue to track the activities of the new administration and attempt to shape them in support of our priorities and the broader research community.

Your feedback needed! Help us make it easier to classify content based on SDGs

We’re excited to share a new tool we’re developing — the SDG Classifier Demonstrator, designed to support social responsibility by helping you align content with the SDGs. It’s a consistent, transparent framework for categorising content based on SDG targets, making it more discoverable and impactful.

The SDG Classifier uses a pre-configured algorithm to evaluate content against specific SDG targets, then returns the number and name of all SDGs that the text matches.

But it’s not done yet: we need your help testing the SDG Classifier. You can try it out here. We’d love to get your feedback by 30 March.