SSP condemns proposed US federal research rule changes
The Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) has issued a strong statement opposing proposed changes to US federal grant guidance. It says the changes would undermine scientific integrity, restrict global collaboration, and weaken trust in research.
The comments follow the release of a proposal by the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to revise the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, commonly known as the Uniform Guidance. According to SSP, the proposed changes would introduce new requirements for federal programmes and grant distribution that would significantly limit the role of scientific expertise in federal decision-making.
In a statement issued by its Board of Directors, SSP said the proposals run counter to the organisation’s core values of community, integrity, inclusivity and adaptability.
“The proposed rule introduces new requirements for federal programs, including grant distribution, that would significantly constrain the role of scientific expertise in federal decision-making,” the statement said. “As the Board of Directors of SSP, we oppose this update unequivocally and stand in full support of the global scholarly publishing community.”
SSP highlighted the role scholarly publishers play in safeguarding the integrity of the scientific record and facilitating international collaboration. The organisation argued that restricting participation in federally supported research would create barriers to knowledge-sharing and limit engagement with global challenges.
“Global inclusion is essential to the integrity of our work,” SSP said. “Restricting who can participate in federally supported research and creating barriers to knowledge is unacceptable.”
The organisation warned that limiting international collaboration would reduce the diversity of perspectives that underpin scientific progress and scholarly communication.
SSP also criticised what it described as the politicisation of research governance, arguing that the proposed revisions place “politics above scientific integrity, innovation, and trust”. “The long-term effect of this rule would be a research landscape representing fewer breakthroughs and perspectives, resulting in reduced innovation and weakened public confidence in the institutions responsible for the administration of scientific knowledge,” the statement said.
As part of its response, SSP has called on members of the scholarly communications community to engage with the consultation process and submit comments on the proposed rule before the July 13 deadline.
The society will also host a town hall meeting on 22 June, led by its newly formed Advocacy Committee and co-chaired by Beth Craanen and Tim Lloyd, to discuss the implications of the proposal and coordinate community responses.
SSP said it would continue to advocate for the global research and publishing community and work with partner organisations to oppose the proposed revisions.
“We will not be silent, nor will we stand idly by while the importance of our work and the identity of our community is minimised,” the organisation said.
The OMB consultation is open until 13 July under reference OMB-2026-0034. SSP has encouraged stakeholders across the scholarly communications ecosystem to submit feedback and support efforts to protect international research collaboration and scientific integrity.