Charlie,
A much more balanced view than others have posted.
> NIH Open Access requirement is a vast overreach.
I agree.
> HR 3699 appears to be as deeply flawed.
It could be made better with amendments?
Enrico.
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:06:24 +0100, Charles W. Carter, Jr
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> For what it's worth, my own experience with the issue of scholarly
> publication and open access is nuanced enough that perhaps my two-bits
> worth can add to this discussion. In short, I agree both with Ian's
> previous message and with Herbert, and feel that the incompatibility
> between them goes to the root of a problem for which the answer is
> certainly not quite there.
>
> I have been much influenced by the work done on this issue by Fred
> Dylla, Executive Director of the American Institute of Physics. Here is
> a link to recent information concerning his four-year effort to reach
> consensus on this issue:
>
> http://www.aip.org/aip/aipmatters/archive/2011/1_24_11.html
>
> I personally think that the NIH Open Access requirement is a vast
> overreach. PubMed Central is very difficult to use and ultimately has
> never satisfied me: I always go to the UNC library holdings. There are
> several reasons why. The most immediate is that PubMed Central almost
> never gives a satisfactory copy of a paper I want to read, and the most
> serious reason is that I am convinced that the overhead exacted on
> authors and PIs by the NIH means that few, if any authors give much more
> than a glance in the direction of updating deposited manuscripts from
> journals that do not automatically deposit the version of record. For
> this reason, many PubMed Central entries are likely to have more than
> minor errors corrected in proof only in the version of record. I don't
> personally see any way around the problem that there is only one version
> of record and that version is the one for which copyright is retained by
> the publisher.
>
> On the other hand, I am deeply sympathetic to the argument that
> publicly-funded research must be freely accessible. After talking
> intensely with the library administrators at UNC, I also believe deeply
> that university library subscriptions satisfy the need for open access.
> Casting aside for the moment the issue of Open Access journals, whose
> only real difference lies in who pays the costs of publication, I have
> long believed that careful validation through peer review constitutes
> serious added value and that journals are entitled to being paid for
> that added value. What makes this issue more difficult for me is that I
> share with many the deep suspicions of corporate (as opposed to Member
> Society) publishing organizations. Several years ago I withdrew my
> expertise from the Nature group in protest over what I felt (after,
> again, long discussions with our UNC librarians) was a power play
> designed only to weaken the library systems. I have similar views about
> Elsevier.
>
> Finally, I am inclined to sign this petition for other reasons,
> including the fact that HR 3699 appears to be as deeply flawed in the
> other direction as the original enabling legislation that vested such
> power in the NIH and, in the same act, all but eliminated any opposition
> by diluting responsibility for compliance to the fullest possible
> extent, by penalizing PIs for non-compliance. When I first read of this
> petition, I was deeply incensed that the wing nuts in Congress would
> craft a bill so obviously designed to reward the 1%, so to speak.
>
> In closing, I earnestly recommend that as many of you as possible look
> into Fred Dylla's work on this issue. The AIP is a publisher whose only
> revenue other than philanthropy comes from the intellectual property and
> added value of its journals, some of which represent the finest in
> physical chemistry relevant to our community. Dylla deserves kudos for
> his effort to find consensus, something that seems to have gone way out
> of fashion in recent years.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
> On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Ian Tickle wrote:
>
>> Dear Herbert
>>
>> Thanks for your detailed explanation. I had missed the important
>> point that it's the requirement on the authors to assent to open
>> access after a year, which the proposed Bill seeks to abolish, that's
>> critical here.
>>
>> I will go and sign the petition right now!
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>> -- Ian
>>
>> On 16 February 2012 15:24, Herbert J. Bernstein
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> The bill summary says:
>>>
>>> Research Works Act - Prohibits a federal agency from adopting,
>>> maintaining,
>>> continuing, or otherwise engaging 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; or
>>> *(2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the author's
>>> employer, assent to such network dissemination. *
>>>
>>> Defines "private-sector research work" as an article intended to be
>>> published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of
>>> such
>>> an article, that is not a work of the U.S. government, describing or
>>> interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a federal agency
>>> and to
>>> which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into
>>> an
>>> arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review
>>> or
>>> editing, but does not include progress reports or raw data outputs
>>> routinely
>>> required to be created for and submitted directly to a funding agency
>>> in the
>>> course of research.
>>>
>>> ==========================================
>>>
>>> It is the second provision that really cuts the legs out from the NIH
>>> open
>>> access policy. What the NIH policy does is to make open access
>>> publication a
>>> condition imposed on the grant holders in publishing work that the NIH
>>> funded. This has provided the necessary lever for NIH-funded authors
>>> to be
>>> able to publish in well-respected journals and still to be able to
>>> require
>>> that, after a year, their work be available without charge to the
>>> scientific
>>> community. Without that lever we go back to the unlamented old system
>>> (at
>>> least unlamented by almost everybody other than Elsevier) in which
>>> pubishers
>>> could impose an absolute copyright transfer that barred the authors
>>> from
>>> ever posting copies of their work on the web. People affiliated with
>>> libraries with the appropriate subscriptions to the appropriate
>>> archiving
>>> services may not have noticed the difference, but for the significant
>>> portions of both researchers and students who did not have such
>>> access, the
>>> NIH open access policy was by itself a major game changer, making much
>>> more
>>> literature rapidly accessible, and even more importantly changed the
>>> culture, making open access much more respectable.
>>>
>>> The NIH policy does nothing more than put grant-sponsored research on
>>> almost
>>> the same footing as research done directly by the government which has
>>> never
>>> been subject to copyright at all, on the theory that, if the tax-payers
>>> already paid for the research, they should have open access to the
>>> fruits of
>>> that research. This law would kill that policy. This would be a major
>>> step
>>> backwards.
>>>
>>> Please read:
>>>
>>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/evo-eco-lab/2012/01/16/mistruths-insults-from-the-copyright-lobby-over-hr-3699/
>>>
>>> http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/action_access/12-0106.shtml
>>>
>>> http://www.care2.com/causes/open-access-under-threat-hr-3699.html
>>>
>>> Please support the petition. This is a very bad bill. It is not about
>>> protecting copyright, it is an effort to restrict the free flow of
>>> scientific information in our community.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Herbert
>>>
>>> On 2/16/12 9:02 AM, Fischmann, Thierry wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Herbert
>>>>
>>>> I don't see how the act could affect the NIH open access policy.
>>>> Could you
>>>> please shed some light on that?
>>>>
>>>> What I read seems reasonable and I intend to ask my representatives to
>>>> support this text. But obviously I am missing something and like to
>>>> learn
>>>> from you first.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Thierry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>>> Herbert J. Bernstein
>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:16 AM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Fwd: HR3699, Research Works Act
>>>>
>>>> Dear Ian,
>>>>
>>>> You are mistaken. The proposed law has nothing to do with
>>>> preventing
>>>> the
>>>> encouragement people to break copyright law. It has everything to do
>>>> with
>>>> trying to kill the very reasonable NIH open access policy that
>>>> properly
>>>> balances the rights of publishers with the rights of authors and the
>>>> interests of
>>>> the scientific community. Most publishers fare quite well under a
>>>> policy that
>>>> gives them a year of exclusive control over papers, followed by open
>>>> access.
>>>>
>>>> It is, unfortunately, a standard ploy in current American politics
>>>> to
>>>> make a
>>>> law which does something likely to be very unpopular and very
>>>> unreasonable
>>>> sound like it is a law doing something quite different.
>>>>
>>>> Please reread it carefully. I think you will join in opposing this
>>>> law. Science
>>>> benefits from the NIH open access policy and the rights of all
>>>> concerned
>>>> are respected. It would be a mistake to allow the NIH open access
>>>> policy
>>>> to
>>>> be killed.
>>>>
>>>> I hope you will sign the petition.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Herbert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/16/12 6:29 AM, Ian Tickle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Reading the H.R.3699 bill as put forward
>>>>> (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR03699:@@@L&summ2=m&)
>>>>> it seems to be about prohibiting US federal agencies from having
>>>>> policies which permit, authorise or require authors' assent to break
>>>>> the law of copyright in respect of published journal articles
>>>>> describing work funded at least in part by a US federal agency. I'm
>>>>> assuming that "network dissemination without the publisher's consent"
>>>>> is the same thing as breaking the law of copyright.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to imply that it would still be legal for US federal
>>>>> agencies
>>>>> to encourage others to break the law of copyright in respect of
>>>>> journal articles describing work funded by say UK funding agences! -
>>>>> or is there already a US law in place which prohibits that? I'm only
>>>>> surprised that encouraging others to break the law isn't already
>>>>> illegal (even for Govt agencies): isn't that the law of incitement
>>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement)?
>>>>>
>>>>> This forum in fact already has such a policy in place for all journal
>>>>> articles (i..e not just those funded by US federal agencies but by
>>>>> all
>>>>> funding agencies), i.e. we actively discourage postings which incite
>>>>> others to break the law by asking for copies of copyrighted published
>>>>> articles. Perhaps the next petition should seek to overturn this
>>>>> policy?
>>>>>
>>>>> This petition seems to be targeting the wrong law: if what you want
>>>>> is
>>>>> free flow of information then it's the copyright law that you need to
>>>>> petition to overturn, or you get around it by publishing in someplace
>>>>> that doesn't require transfer of copyright.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> -- Ian
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16 February 2012 09:35, Tim Gruene<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Raji,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> maybe you could increase the number of supporters if you included a
>>>>>> link
>>>>>> to (a description of) the content of HR3699 - I will certainly not
>>>>>> sign
>>>>>> something only summarised by a few polemic sentences ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> Tim
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/15/2012 11:53 PM, Raji Edayathumangalam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you agree, please signing the petition below. You need to
>>>>>>> register
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> the link below before you can sign this petition. Registration and
>>>>>>> signing
>>>>>>> the petition took about a minute or two.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Raji
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>> From: Seth Darst<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> Date: Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM
>>>>>>> Subject: HR3699, Research Works Act
>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rep. Caroline Maloney has not backed off in her attempt to put
>>>>>>> forward
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> interests of Elsevier and other academic publishers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you oppose this measure, please sign this petition on the
>>>>>>> official
>>>>>>> 'we
>>>>>>> the people' White House web site. It needs 23,000 signatures before
>>>>>>> February 22nd and only 1100 so far. Please forward far and wide.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oppose HR3699, the Research Works Act
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HR 3699, the Research Works Act will be detrimental to the free
>>>>>>> flow of
>>>>>>> scientific information that was created using Federal funds. It is
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> attempt to put federally funded scientific information behind
>>>>>>> pay-walls,
>>>>>>> and confer the ownership of the information to a private entity.
>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>> is an
>>>>>>> affront to open government and open access to information created
>>>>>>> using
>>>>>>> public funds.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This link gets you to the petition:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/oppose-hr3699-research-works-act/vKMhCX9k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - --
>>>>>> - --
>>>>>> Dr Tim Gruene
>>>>>> Institut fuer anorganische Chemie
>>>>>> Tammannstr. 4
>>>>>> D-37077 Goettingen
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GPG Key ID = A46BEE1A
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>>>>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> iD8DBQFPPM3kUxlJ7aRr7hoRAsKYAKDIs/jZHPBIV4AB2qrpBdXrSOn+VwCePabR
>>>>>> Nm6+LK17jLJnPTqkjsQ4fV8=
>>>>>> =a27t
>>>>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Notice: This e-mail message, together with any attachments, contains
>>>> information of Merck& Co., Inc. (One Merck Drive, Whitehouse Station,
>>>> New Jersey, USA 08889), and/or its affiliates Direct contact
>>>> information
>>>> for affiliates is available at
>>>> http://www.merck.com/contact/contacts.html) that may be confidential,
>>>> proprietary copyrighted and/or legally privileged. It is intended
>>>> solely
>>>> for the use of the individual or entity named on this message. If you
>>>> are
>>>> not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error,
>>>> please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete it from
>>>> your system.
>>>>
>>>>
|