 |
 |
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. >>> >>> >>>