Research Works Act: Outlawing Open Access

A bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives would prevent alternative access to papers published in for-profit journals.  Heather Joseph’s blog post points out that it is designed to roll back the NIH policy.  It is supported by the Association of Academic Publishers, whose spokesman said it’s all about JOBS!  (as is everything else in the U.S. Congress these days).  As reported in ResearchProfessional, “ ‘America’s PSP publishers are making more research information available to more people, through more channels, than ever before in our history,’ said Tom Allen, AAP’s president and CEO.

“ ‘At a time when job retention, US exports, scholarly excellence, scientific integrity and digital copyright protection are all priorities, the Research Works Act ensures the sustainability of this industry,’ he added.”

Democratic legislators are starting to take up the matter after hearing from the academic community.  As reported by Richard Poynder in Open and shut (on this blog’s blogroll), MIT is once again leading the way as its Press announced that it does not support the Act, and there are calls to other presses to follow, and individuals are taking up the cause–Poynder cites (links to) a particularly link-rich echo by Jonathan Eisen, a biologist and Open Access advocate, which links to another Open Science blog by Cameron Neylon in the UK implicating the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Association of Academic Publishers.

One thought on “Research Works Act: Outlawing Open Access”

  1. See:
    “Research Works Act H.R.3699:
    The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again”


    The US Research Works Act (H.R.3699): “No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that — (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work.”

    Translation and Comments:

    “If public tax money is used to fund research, that research becomes “private research” once a publisher “adds value” to it by managing the peer review.”

    [Comment: Researchers do the peer review for the publisher for free, just as researchers give their papers to the publisher for free, together with the exclusive right to sell subscriptions to it, on-paper and online, seeking and receiving no fee or royalty in return].

    “Since that public research has thereby been transformed into “private research,” and the publisher’s property, the government that funded it with public tax money should not be allowed to require the funded author to make it accessible for free online for those users who cannot afford subscription access.”

    [Comment: The author’s sole purpose in doing and publishing the research, without seeking any fee or royalties, is so that all potential users can access, use and build upon it, in further research and applications, to the benefit of the public that funded it; this is also the sole purpose for which public tax money is used to fund research.]”

    H.R. 3699 misunderstands the secondary, service role that peer-reviewed research journal publishing plays in US research and development and its (public) funding.

    It is a huge miscalculation to weigh the potential gains or losses from providing or not providing open access to publicly funded research in terms of gains or losses to the publishing industry: Lost or delayed research progress mean losses to the growth and productivity of both basic research and the vast R&D industry in all fields, and hence losses to the US economy as a whole.

    What needs to be done about public access to peer-reviewed scholarly publications resulting from federally funded research?

    The minimum policy is for all US federal funders to mandate (require), as a condition for receiving public funding for research, that: (i) the fundee’s revised, accepted refereed final draft of (ii) all refereed journal articles resulting from the funded research must be (iii) deposited immediately upon acceptance for publication (iv) in the fundee’’s institutional repository, with (v) access to the deposit made free for all (OA) immediately (no OA embargo) wherever possible (over 60% of journals already endorse immediate gratis OA self-archiving), and at the latest after a 6-month embargo on OA.

    It is the above policy that H.R.3699 is attempting to make illegal…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *