A bill proposed by House representatives Darrell Isa (R-Calif.) and Carolyn B Maloney (D-N.Y.) has scientists around the world up in arms. To paraphrase, H.R. 3699, the “Research Works Act” forbids any federal agency from having a policy requiring free distribution of research publications against the wishes of the publishing company.
RWA is a shot aimed directly at the publication policy established by the National Institutes of Health in 2008. NIH’s policy requires that all researchers funded by the NIH submit copies of their accepted, peer-reviewed manuscripts to the National Library of Medicine. These scientific manuscripts are then made freely available to the public, via the internet, no later than one year after the official date of publication.
NIH’s publication policy was developed in order to facilitate the exchange of information between scientists and speed the progress of important lines of research. Additionally, the policy was formed in the belief that American taxpayers funded the research, and therefore have a right to see what they have paid for at no further cost. The year-long grace period was intended to allow publishing companies to recoup their expenses and make a profit from the most recent research reports.
Publishers of scientific journals do not pay the scientist-authors who submit research articles, nor do they pay the scientist-peer reviewers who validate the quality of submitted studies. The publishers add value in the form of editing for consistent format, as well as the cost of publishing in paper and/or electronic form. Subscriptions are then sold to individuals or academic libraries; individual articles may often be purchased online, typically at a cost of around $30 each.
Angry scientists see the hand of Dutch publishing company Elsevier behind RWA. Elsevier publishes hundreds of academic titles, including prestigious journals such as “The Lancet.” Eminent mathematician Timothy Gowers of the University of Cambridge has organized a boycott of Elsevier publications. He claims that Elsevier overcharges for subscriptions, forces University libraries to buy bundles of obscure journal titles in order to get the ones they want, and lobbies for legislation such as RWA. Nearly 5,000 scientists have already signed Dr. Gowers’ pledge.
For its part, Elsevier has published an open letter to researchers concerning the company’s support of RWA. The company expresses opposition to government determining how scientific manuscripts are distributed without involvement of publishers. To quote, “we oppose in principle the notion that governments should be able to dictate the terms by which products of private sector investments are distributed, especially if they are to be distributed for free.” Elsevier’s comments do not address the question of investment in the actual research, without which their publications could not exist.
The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, where it awaits deliberation and further action.
Sources:
Josh Fischman (January 2012). The Chronicle of Higher Education, Wired Campus, “Elsevier Publishing Boycott Gathers Steam among Academics.”
The Library Of Congress, Bill Text H.R. 3699.
NIH Public Access Policy Details.
The Cost of Knowledge, Researchers Taking a Stand Against Elsevier
Elsevier. “A Message to the Research Community: Elsevier, Access and the Research Works Act.”