Apply Give Visit Find case.edu RSS feed Find us on Facebook LinkedIn Videos on Youtube Videos on iTunes Follow us on Twitter

Category FreeSearch

The Research Works Act, Part 2

0 comments By . February 8th, 2012

The conflict ignited by the December, 2011 introduction of the Research Works Act,  H.R 3699, by U.S. Representatives Darrell Issa (R-Ca) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), has morphed into an international protest of  one the most powerful STM journal publishers in the world, Elsevier Inc.

The Research Works Act prohibits all federal agencies from putting any privately published articles into  an online database, even federally funded databases, if there is any editorial or peer review contribution to the piece by a private publisher. The Association of American Publishers, a trade group that has opposed free public access to NIH funded research on the website of the National Library of Medicine, is a major backer of the bill, along with the Copyright Alliance and others.

Both organizations argue in favor of the “significant value added by the private-sector publisher,” including that of contributors who are not funded by the government. The Copyright Alliance explains their position on their website: “…it is not fair to other investors in the research, if there are any it arbitrarily limits the value of the copyright in the article for the author and publisher, and harms the publisher’s investments in ensuring a quality publication; and, it results in reduced incentives for both these groups to publish peer-reviewed articles…”

Meanwhile, on Jan. 21, 2012, Timothy Gowers of Cambridge University called for a  boycott of Reed Elsevier, which describes itself as “the world’s leading provider of scientific and medical information and scientists, health professionals and students worldwide.” Establishing the website, The Cost of Knowledge, Gowers now has over 2,500 professors who have signed a “won’t publish, won’t referee, won’t do editorial work for Elsevier STM journals because of the company’s business practices with respect to its STM journals.” Protestors have spoken out against Elsevier’s prices and bundling of subscriptions. Libraries have also questioned some practices. But its Elsevier’s support of the Research Works Act that has galvanized members of the scientific community into an international protest. Law libraries have an interest as well. LexisNexis Legal and Professional is owned by Elsevier.

 

Archive of National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Papers Now Available for Open Access

0 comments By . January 26th, 2012

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) recently announced:

Effective January 1, 2012, all NBER working papers that were distributed prior to a three year “moving wall” are available for open access on the NBER website. They are also available at no charge through SSRN.

All users may now browse for NBER papers on its website under “Archive of Earlier Papers,” Users may also choose to use the NBER site’s search template by clicking on the button for “Working Papers & Publications”, or they may choose to search for NBER papers on SSRN.

In the past, Case Western Reserve Law users had to place special document delivery requests through the Law Library Interlibrary Loan service for NBER papers. Now users need only place such requests NBER papers that have appeared within the last three years.

For those not familiar with it, Social Science Research Network (SSRN) distributes working papers and abstracts for scholarly papers. Papers are arranged within number of scholarly subject area networks. SSRN’s networks “provide rapid worldwide distribution of research to authors and their readers and to facilitate communication among them at the lowest possible cost.” Many of the papers and abstracts are available for free. The NBER is a special partner with SSRN.

If you want to know more about the NBER, see its website. There is also a brief Wikipedia article that provides some interesting background highlights about the NBER’s past members and discusses the NBER’s special role in defining recessions. Many of its authors are or have become Nobel Prize recipients.

Research Works Act and Free Access to Journal Articles

0 comments By . January 25th, 2012

The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 established the National Institutes of Medicine’s public access policy requiring that:

“…all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication…”

(Division F, Sec. 217)

As a result, the public has been able to read current NIH funded research, free of charge, on the National Library of Medicine website.

However, at the end of 2011, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives, the Research Works Act, which would give private publishers the ability to restrict the National Library of Medicine from disseminating federal funded private sector research articles on the National Library of Medicine website. Librarians, patient advocacy groups and researchers are opposed to the bill which is backed by the Association of American Publishers, who claim that the value added to a finished article, such as peer-review, must be compensated. Researchers argue that the public is paying twice—funding the research and accessing the results.

Generally speaking, open access to scholarly content will continue to gain supporters from the library end of the transaction, especially as library budgets shrink and serials inflation continues to eat into what remains. The most significant force behind this trend maybe the scientists themselves. Thomas Lin, in a New York Times article entitled Cracking Open the Scientific Process, finds some scientists refusing to conduct peer review for or submit papers to commercial journals, calling such contributions free labor. Some see online scientific publishing as a vast untapped market.

 

China Guiding Cases Project (CGCP)

1 comment By . January 17th, 2012

Stanford Law School recently launched the China Guiding Cases Project (CGCP), an initiative to make a searchable database of “guiding cases” from China’s Supreme People’s Court available in Chinese and English translation. In addition, a Wex-like feature will allow legal experts from around the world to provide commentaries on the decisions. Non-experts may also post comments in Chinese or English on the website. The Supreme People’s Court created a rule, effective Nov. 26, 2010, which states that all Chinese courts “should refer to” such guiding cases and “serious repercussions” have arisen in the past year when such cases have not been followed, according to the CGCP website. The guiding cases thus approximate, if not officially so, the concept of precedent (stare decisis) in legal systems based on the common law. The CGCP should play an important role in making the most important Chinese court decisions available world-wide in two of the most widely-spoken languages in the world.

The University of Washington School of Law Library offers a Chinese legal research guide, updated on Dec. 6, 2011. While a majority of the resources discussed, not surprisingly, are restricted to UW users, some generally-available websites are available to all users, and some books that are referenced in the research guide may be available via CWRU libraries, OhioLINK or ILL for CWRU patrons.

GlobaLex offers a free Chinese legal research guide, dated Feb., 2005.

Currently-enrolled CWRU Law students researching Chinese legal topics may also access Westlaw China on any computer in the Law Library’s computer labs. This proprietary (e.g. non-free) database covers a variety of Chinese legal topics, with current awareness updates added several times a day. CWRU Law patrons researching a Chinese legal topic in depth may request a Personal Research Consultation for additional assistance.

 

The Root’s Best and Worst of Race and the Law for 2011

0 comments By . January 3rd, 2012

The popular website, The Root, has published a Race and the Law year-end review for 2011. Written by Sherrilyn A. Ifill, categories include Best/Worst Judicial Opinion, Best/Worst Reversal and, Best/ Worst Police Department Practice and Action. The Best Legal Blog category introduced me to some sites that may also be of interest to you:

Turtle Talk: The Indigenous Law and Policy Center Blog — Selected for its excellent analysis of Native American legal issues, this site has its own list of Top Ten Indian Law Stories of 2011.

Colored Demos: A Blog on Law, Politics, Democracy, Culture, Race — In addition to writing on the political issues of the times, The Root says, “Colored Demos” offers sophisticated, intellectual analysis by the powerhouse trio of law scholars Guy-Ureil Charles, Luis Fuentes-Rohwer and Anupam Chander, who write about the Supreme Court, race, law and politics.”

Dissenting Justice: Commentary on Law, Politics, and Justice — This is The Root’s selection for blog of the year.  Ms. Ifill comments, “Dissenting Justice blog can’t be beat for fearless, thoughtful analysis of race, politics and law. The series, ‘Every Murder Victim has a Story,’ is a hypnotic and powerful elegy to crime victims in the D.C.-Baltimore area — movingly focusing on matters not often addressed on legal blogs.”  The series is based on the 2010 killing of 17-year old Joseph Sharps, Jr. in Washington, D.C. A case update is found at the Wednesday, December 7, 2011 blog post.

Securities Law ‘Selected Statutes and Regulations’ eBook

1 comment By . December 29th, 2011

CALI’s eLangdell publishing project has just released, in ePub format, a (free) collection of federal securities laws and regulations “as published by the United States Government Printing Office on the FDSYS website.” This promises an accessible and portable set of statutes and regulations that can be freely accessed outside of the context of an online web browser and the GPO website.

This follows eLangdell’s publication (in cooperation with the Legal Information Institute) of ebook editions of the Federal Rules (in both ePub and Kindle formats).

To my mind, this moves the print “deskbook” editions of un-annotated collected statutes and rules, such as those publishers like West sell for good money, one step closer to obsolescence for most purposes. (I’ve been recommending LII for non-annotated statute reading for years.) A printed book does still have advantages (in terms of “page flipping” and easy access to cross-references) over an electronic text on an e-reader, at least to my aging mind. But, when the actual content is public-domain and free, I would think that the existence of relatively simple innovations like CALI’s ePub re-packagings would have to create some serious new cost pressures.

Read previous entries