Author: Felicia Bowling

Trump Administration proposes significant cuts for FY26

by Felicia Bowling

On Friday, the Trump Administration released a partial budget request for Fiscal Year 2026, which begins on October 1.

While the President’s budget is only a request—Congress must still pass appropriations bills, which often differ significantly—it signals this Administration’s continued aggressive stance on federal spending. That makes this proposal more consequential than a typical opening bid.

As anticipated, the draft budget outlines substantial reductions in science funding, including proposed cuts of more than 50% to the National Science Foundation, NASA science programs, and other research-related agencies.

NIH moves immediate access requirement to 1 July

by Felicia Bowling

The NIH has unexpectedly revised the implementation timeline for its updated 2024 public access policy (the 2024 updated policy). The new requirement will now take effect on 1 July 2025, instead of the previously announced 31 December 2025.

Under this policy, any peer-reviewed article reporting on NIH-funded research that is accepted for publication on or after 1 July 2025 must be made publicly available in PubMed Central without an embargo. All other provisions of the updated policy remain unchanged. View the revised NIH notice here.

The change was announced via a statement and tweet from NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya and a blog post by the Office of Science Policy, which framed the update as part of broader efforts by NIH, HHS, and the Administration to promote transparency and strengthen public trust in science.

STM will continue to monitor developments in U.S. public access policy and keep members informed. Please note: this change only affects the implementation date—it does not alter any other aspects of the NIH policy, nor does it apply to other agencies. In fact, the announcements do not reference the Nelson Memo.

Webinar recap: Get ready for the European Accessibility Act

by Felicia Bowling

With the European Accessibility Act going into effect this June, it’s time to make sure you’re in compliance. Silverchair hosted a webinar exploring what publishers can do to prepare, illustrating that true accessibility is not just about compliance — it’s about creating content that can genuinely reach and serve all potential users. Catch the replay (and transcript) here.

EU Code of Practice for AI companies released as a watered-down draft

by Felicia Bowling

The third draft of the EU’s AI Code of Practice — the last one we’ll be able to provide feedback on before the final version is published by 1 May — is now available, and unfortunately, it has been severely weakened. All of the provisions were watered down and there are no new gains in this version, which is extremely frustrating given the time and consideration put into providing feedback so far.

This isn’t a surprise, given the extremely tense global context and the pressure to de-regulate, but it begs the question of whether having a Code in place offers any advantage at all. STM is coordinating with other rightsholder organisations to plan next steps. Watch this space — we’ll keep you posted.

Meta sued for using copyrighted works for AI

by Felicia Bowling

Three French publishing organisations sued Meta last month, accusing the company of parasitically using their members’ copyrighted works without permission to train its generative AI models. This marks France’s first major AI copyright dispute, and it could set important legal precedents for both French and EU case law.

The lawsuit, brought before the Paris Judicial Court by the Syndicat national de l’édition (SNE), the Société des Gens de Lettres (SGDL) and the Syndicat National des Auteurs et Compositeurs (SNAC), demands the removal of unauthorised datasets and claims Meta is exploiting cultural heritage.

The future of the EU R&I Framework Programme is still uncertain

by Felicia Bowling

Research Commissioner Zaharieva, the EU Parliament and EU countries have all confirmed their support for a stand-alone Framework Programme 10 (FP10) with an increased budget. However, the decision of whether to continue with FP10 or incorporate the R&I grants in the new Competitiveness Compass Fund hasn’t been finalised. It may depend directly on EU Commission President Von der Leyen and her vision to deliver on her competitiveness strategy. Most recently, Commissioner Zaharieva offered that the EU’s research and innovation programme could continue to be a “standalone” entity even if it is moved into a planned new European Competitiveness Fund.

Updates from the US: Grants cut, journal subscriptions cancelled and more

by Felicia Bowling

The pace and scale of developments make it difficult to report on every change of impact in the US. Here are some key recent developments:

  • The Senate confirmed Michael Kratsios as director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Dr Jayanta Bhattacharya as director of the National Institutes of Health. This should mean that we’ll hear very soon about further plans for OSTP and NIH. The Administration also has made additional nominations for science roles at agencies.
  • The administration continued its efforts to reduce spending on science — cancelling grants that don’t align with Federal priorities, cutting staff (including 25% of the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes NIH) and even plans to close science offices across government agencies. The White House directed agencies to develop plans to reduce staff by 13 March, which are now being reviewed. Although the plans aren’t public yet, cuts are expected to be significant to research funding and administration.
  • Federal agencies cancelled subscriptions to scholarly journals across the government, limiting federal researchers’ and program officers’ ability to stay on top of developments in science. The direct impact on publishers is unclear, but STM is following it closely and will advocate for the government to continue to subscribe for access to the information it needs to advance science and inform decision-making.

New digital identity framework aims to strengthen research integrity in scholarly publishing

by Felicia Bowling

A new framework aimed at strengthening research integrity in scholarly publishing is being released today for community consultation. The Researcher Identity Verification Framework proposes proportionate and inclusive measures to verify researcher identities, helping to combat fraud, reduce paper mill activity, and protect the integrity of the academic record.

For centuries, academic publishing has operated on a foundation of trust, with an implicit assumption that individuals engaging with an academic journal do so in good faith and within established norms and practices. Traditionally, only an email address has been required to submit a paper for publication, act as a peer reviewer, or join an editorial board. However, a rising number of mass retractions attributed to fraudulence, and research integrity breaches—driven by fraudulent actors and organized paper mills—illustrate vulnerabilities in this approach. Paper mills and dishonest individuals have been able to subvert these processes for financial or reputational gain, risking pollution of the scholarly record and leading to a steep increase in retractions. The result is a growing gap between the level of trust editorial systems require and what researchers can easily provide.

This report, which builds on earlier work presented last year, proposes a Researcher Identity Trust Framework aimed at enhancing the integrity of editorial processes through proportionate and inclusive verification measures. By assessing risk levels, offering a diverse range of verification methods, evaluating trust consistently, taking appropriate actions based on trust assessments, and implementing feedback mechanisms, the framework seeks to balance the need for security with the imperative of inclusivity.

Key recommendations emphasise the use of existing identity infrastructures, such as institutional identity providers and ORCID trust markers, to verify researchers’ identities and academic legitimacy. The framework also underscores the importance of offering alternative verification routes to ensure that legitimate researchers are not excluded due to varying access to verification methods.

Access the Researcher Identity Verification Framework here.

This report is released as a draft for community consultation and will form the basis of further work. We welcome feedback through this form or by emailing Richard at richard@stm-solutions.org 

 

 

 

  

 

EU Parliament’s research committee asks for increased R&I budget

by Felicia Bowling

On 19 February, the ITRE (Industry, Research and Energy) Committee voted with a strong majority on their position of the 10th Framework Programme. The EU Parliament is asking for a standalone FP10 with an increased budget of €200 billion and governance that is more expert-driven than top-down.

The position mentions the need to balance openness and research security, the benefits and risks of AI in the scientific environment and the importance of protecting the independence of the European Research Council (ERC). ERC President Maria Leptin also delivered a strong message to the Parliament, asking to double the budget. A first draft of the Warsaw Declaration, which will be signed by EU countries, backs these points.

Living repository to support AI literacy and AI Act compliance

by Felicia Bowling

The European Commission has established a living repository to support AI literacy, a requirement of the AI Act that took effect last month. AI providers and deployers have to ensure AI literacy among their staff and users, regardless of the risk level of the AI models or systems they use.

The non-exhaustive but regularly updated repository is a way for the EU AI Office to support compliance by compiling current AI literacy practices. Implementing these practices does not guarantee compliance, but the repository serves as a blueprint and resource to foster learning among AI providers and deployers.