Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Research Open Access In Peril

Posted by Soulskill on from the all-about-the-benjamins dept.

luceth writes "Several years ago, the U.S. National Institutes of Health instituted a policy whereby publications whose research was supported by federal funds were to be made freely accessible a year after publication. The rationale was that the public paid for the research in the first place. This policy is now threatened by legislation introduced by, you guessed it, a Congresswoman who is the largest recipient of campaign contributions from the scientific publishing industry. The full text of the bill, H.R. 3699, is available online."

5 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The feds can't mandate openness, but... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Informative

    With this bill, the feds paying out the grants (NIH, NSF, DARPA, etc.) can't mandate the openness, but the research institutions and the researchers can do it themselves.

    Umm, no.

    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;

    Note that the publisher has a veto on it as well, if it's published in a peer-reviewed journal.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  2. Tell your congress critter - POPVOX by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 5, Informative

    Make sure you let your representing congress critters know your displeasure for such legislation. Don't let corporate money be the only voice.

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  3. Re:The academic publishing scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The publisher got all the material for free?! No! Even worse! Scientists MUST pay when their article gets accepted. Reviewers work on a volunteer basis, NO payment whatsoever. The publisher often does NOTHING to article other than checking formatting issue. Often times, scientists themselves have to fix formatting issues. The review process is usually organized by a volunteer chief editor. The chief editor then decides what to publish. Publishers did ZERO on the science part and almost zero on the formatting part. After then, the publisher CHARGES libraries or individual readers for the electronic copies for which it does ALMOST NOTHING!

  4. Re:Name and party affiliation by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 5, Informative
    Make sure you include "all" sponsors. Oh wait, you only wanted to malign the democrats... Oh well, too bad, this was a bi-partisan sponsored bill so I'll FTFY.

    H.R. 3699 was introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Committee member Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY)

    --
    Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  5. Re:Name and party affiliation by braeldiil · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why am I not suprised that you managed not to mention the actual sponsor, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). Rep Maloney is the other sponsor, but the bill was introduced by Rep. Issa. For reference, this is Rep. Issa's third bite at this particular apple - he was a cosponser on a similar bill in 2008 and 2009. Rep Maloney was also a cosponser in 2009.