- Research Works Act Could Challenge Public Access to Federally Funded Research
- Wiley: Major Cancer Societies to Support New Wiley Open Access Journal
- Taking on the jobs argument for the RWA
- University Presses Disagree With Publishers Group on Bill to Curb Public Access - Research - The Chronicle of Higher Education
- Research Works Act: Cambridge University Press expands on its position
- Confessions of an open access editor
- Muratoriana online - centro studi muratoriani
- Support Public Access to Public-funded Science: Oppose H.R. 3699
- Open Education and freedom to teach computing
- Access to the literature: does interlibrary loan solve our problems?
- You Gotta Fight For Your Right To Access
- Can We Sustain Open Initiatives? | Inside Higher Ed
- Opening Up Education: The Collective Advancement of Education through Open Technology, Open Content, and Open Knowledge book - Jericabbi's blog
- eScholarship Launches New Submission Management System
- V. I. Vernadsky National Library of Ukraine Partners with PKP | Public Knowledge Project
- Open Access featured twice on English Wikipedia homepage today
- Time to terminate the "Research Works Act" which aims to terminate public access to publicly-funded science?
- Scholarly Open Access
- Introducing Coliibri.com
- Mistruths, Insults from the Copyright Lobby Over HR 3699 | EvoEcoLab, Scientific American Blog Network
- The academic ethics of open access to research and scholarship
- Medical Physics open access papers.
- JSTOR Tests Free, Read-Only Access to Some Articles
Posted: 17 Jan 2012 08:10 AM PST
"At the time of this writing, six members of the AAP —MIT Press, the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), ITHAKA, Pennsylvania State University Press, The Rockefeller University Press, and the University of California Press— have publicly disavowed this bill. Other organizations, such as the Special Libraries Association, have strongly opposed this bill as well. An online petition site to stop the Research Works Act has also been set up. “I want to state emphatically that I support the NIH Public Access Policy and think it should be expanded to other federal funding agencies,” states Mike Rossner, executive director of The Rockefeller University Press in a public letter. “All publishers of biomedical research understand several truths: 1) that their content is generated in large part through federally funded research, 2) that the peer review process is carried out in large part by federally funded individuals, and 3) that a significant portion of their subscription revenue is obtained from government funded institutions. Although publishers’ content may technically be considered ‘private-sector research work’ as described in the text of H.R. 3699, its very existence depends on public funding.” Peter Suber, director of the Harvard Open Access Project, notes that the bill’s purpose is “To End Government Mandates on Private-Sector Scholarly Publishing” and “prevent regulatory interference with private-sector research publishers....” [He says,] "This is the same rhetoric publishers have used for years. As usual, they neglect to say that the NIH policy regulates grantees, not publishers. They neglect to say that NIH-funded authors in effect ask publishers two questions, not one: “Will you publish my article?” and “Will you publish it under these terms?” It’s a business proposition that publishers are free to take or leave. Finally, the AAP and PSP neglect to say that 100% of surveyed publishers accommodate the NIH policy, or are willing to take that business proposition." ...“There is one aspect of the proposed Act H. R. 3699 that is very interesting,” notes Arthur Sale, professor of computing at the University of Tasmania. “It is an admission by the publishers involved that they do not at present have any intrinsic intellectual property right to control the disposition of the Version of Record otherwise known as the ‘publisher’s pdf.’ The Act is an attempt to create a new right. You should read the full proposed Act. It is absurd, and badly drafted, perhaps deliberately to mislead.” "
Posted: 17 Jan 2012 07:39 AM PST
"Wiley-Blackwell, the scientific, technical, medical and scholarly publishing business of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., today announced the launch of Cancer Medicine, a new Wiley Open Access journal....Cancer Medicine has unprecedented support from three major cancer societies: : American Cancer Society (ACS), Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) and Japanese Cancer Association (JCA)...."
Posted: 17 Jan 2012 07:34 AM PST
[I posted this January 10, 2012, but forgot to tag it for OATP.] "The Association of American Publishers (AAP) contends that the Research Works Act (RWA) is necessary to protect jobs and sustainability in the publishing industry <http://goo.gl/aaVnw>. Here are five arguments against this unargued claim...."
Posted: 17 Jan 2012 07:31 AM PST
"The battle over public access to federally funded research is heating up again, and university presses have been drawn into it. In the past week, several scholarly publishers, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's press, have parted company with a major publishing association over a bill in Congress that would curb public-access mandates....It's not at all certain that the Research Works Act stands much chance of becoming law. Similar legislative efforts in recent years have failed. But the new bill's existence has public-access advocates up in arms, and it has exposed yet again differences among publishers about how much control over access to the research they publish they're entitled to....[Although MIT Press is a member of the AAP,] Ms. Faran said the statement supporting the Research Works Act took her by surprise....The MIT Press publishes about 30 scholarly journals, which account for about a quarter of its income, she said. The press allows authors to share pre- and post-print versions of articles from those journals, and the Research Works Act "is not congruent with our other open-access policies," she said. That's only one reason she weighed in on the bill. "I also felt that the discussion that was going on was nowhere near nuanced enough," Ms. Faran explained. "It just was not recognizing the many complexities that are part of this." ..."
Posted: 17 Jan 2012 07:20 AM PST
Open and Shut?, (17 Jan 2012)
"Last week CUP, which is a member of the AAP, provided the following statement in response to my questions, “We have submitted a formal response to the Office of Science and Technology (OSTP), but we want that response to have time to be processed by OSTP and it is too early for us to make any public statements.” ...Today I was copied into an email [to Peter Murray-Rust] from CUP’s director of corporate affairs Peter Davison. The email expands on CUP’s position vis-à-vis the RWA, and reads: “Cambridge University Press has submitted testimony to the United States Office of Science and Technology in response to the Request for Information (2011-28623) on subjects related to HR 3699. Our testimony is not identical to the position adopted by the Association of American Publishers. In particular, we write: ‘We support all sustainable access models that ensure the permanence and integrity of the scholarly record... The Bill as proposed could undermine the underlying freedoms expected by and of scholarly authors...’ "
Posted: 17 Jan 2012 02:40 AM PST
Posted: 17 Jan 2012 02:07 AM PST
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 07:09 PM PST
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 07:05 PM PST
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 07:03 PM PST
Christina's LIS Rant, (11 Jan 2012)
" Can interlibrary loan solve our problems? My answer is no, and I'll tell you why. First, you have to be affiliated with a library to request an interlibrary loan....Second, ILL is not to be a substitute for a subscription. There are a set of guidelines that libraries follow. One of these is CONTU. The rule of 5 states that you can request no more than 5 articles per year from a particular journal (for journals published within the last 5 years)....Third, ILL is expensive. A 1993 report calculated about $30 per transaction....Fourth, ILL is slow....Fifth, a crappy copy days later is not the type of engagement we need right now. We need to be able to mine, to compare, to calculate, to reuse data and tables....With all this said, I really do wonder to whom the publishers are talking when they're hearing that people have the access they need. Are they talking to people who are at institutions like mine? Are they talking to community college instructors? Are they talking to random members of the public? ..."
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 06:57 PM PST
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 06:53 PM PST
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 06:50 PM PST
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 01:45 PM PST
California Digital Library, (12 Jan 2012)
eScholarship moves to OJS
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 01:44 PM PST
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 01:22 PM PST
Wikimedian in Residence, (15 Jan 2012)
"On the English Wikipedia, the entry about the Research Works Act that aims to roll back the NIH’s Public Access Policy is currently featured on the Main page under “Did you know” ...In the top right of the same page, Open Access is featured a second time: as reported on Wednesday, the smallest vertebrate known to date – the frog Paedophrynes amauensis, originally described in PLoS ONE on Tuesday - was featured in the news section on Wednesday....As far as I know, this is the first time that Open Access has been featured twice on the Main Page of the English Wikipedia...."
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 01:21 PM PST
"I wrote to Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, the sponsor of the bill [RWA], with these concerns, and below is her reply...."
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 11:21 AM PST
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 10:19 AM PST
"Develop and grow creative or innovative ideas with others and share them to the global Commons with Coliibri.com....Coliibri.com is a new platform for creation that allows you to:  Offer a spark of an innovative idea or artistic creation or  Ask for a creative solution / invention / creation from others and  Watch as others expand on your contribution in numerous, sometimes unpredictable ways.  Engage by participating in real-world, cutting-edge projects.  Contribute an idea that does not expire. So, what may seem like a silly idea today, may spark an amazing idea two years in the future.  You may take any part of a creation and freely re-use it and benefit from it. All user contributions are licensed as Creative Commons Share-Alike (CC BY-SA 3.0)...."
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 07:28 AM PST
"As H.R. 3699 was clearly a bill written to increase the profits of the publishing industry, it came as no surprise to me to find the Copyright Alliance’s glowing support cross my eyeballs tonight. It goes a little further than the vaporous AAP release in supporting the Research Works Act and denigrates scientific integrity, insults the government and taxpayers, and wades knee-high into irrelevant points...."
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 07:21 AM PST
The academic ethics of open access to research and scholarship
Ethics and Education 6 (3), 217-23 (01 Oct 2011)
Abstract: In this article, we present the case for regarding the principles by which scholarly publications are disseminated and shared as a matter of academic ethics. The ethics of access have to do with recognizing people's right to know what is known, as well as the value to humanity of having one of its best forms of arriving at knowledge as widely shared as possible. The level of access is often reduced by the financial interests of publishers in a market in which there is little sense of a rational order, given huge discrepancies in prices for similar products. At the same time, there are risks to limiting researchers’ access to scholarly resources, both for the quality of the knowledge that is not entirely open to review and for the production of new knowledge that it might inspire. Then, there are issues of access beyond the academy for professional practice and out of human interest, for both of which undue limitations raise what are, for us, more than academic ethical questions.
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 07:17 AM PST
Posted: 16 Jan 2012 07:15 AM PST
Wired Campus, (13 Jan 2012)
"It’s about to get a little easier—emphasis on “a little”—for users without subscriptions to tap JSTOR’s enormous digital archive of journal articles. In the coming weeks, JSTOR will make available the beta version of a new program, Register & Read, which will give researchers read-only access to some journal articles, no payment required. All users have to do is to sign up for a free “MyJSTOR” account, which will create a virtual shelf on which to store the desired articles. But there are limits. Users won’t be able to download the articles; they will be able to access only three at a time, and there will be a minimum viewing time frame of 14 days per article, which means that a user can’t consume lots of content in a short period. Depending on the journal and the publisher, users may have an option to pay for and download an article if they choose...."
|You are subscribed to email updates from Connotea: Bookmarks matching tag oa.new |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|