Category FreeSearch

It was gone before many even noticed — the Research Works Act, H.R. 3699, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on December 16, 2011 and declared dead by its sponsor, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Cal.) on February 27, 2012.  The Research Works Act would have prohibited all federal agencies from putting any privately published articles into an online database, even federally funded databases, if there we any editorial or peer review contribution to the piece by a private publisher. Aimed squarely at the National Library of Medicine’s public access policy, this Act would have prevented the public from having access to research funded with tax payer dollars and currently available free of charge on PubMed Central. A number of scholarly associations opposed the act from the beginning but some publishers and associations justified doing away with public access because of the value-added costs incurred in the peer-review publishing system. Among publishers, one of the most influential supporters of the Research Works Act was Reed Elsevier, Inc..

What followed was a social media phenomena. On January 21, 2012, Timothy Gowers of Cambridge University called for a boycott of Reed Elsevier. Fed up with the high price of subscriptions, the bundling of journal subscriptions to libraries and Elsevier’s support of anti-public access legislation, more than 7,400 scholars have signed an online petition pledging not to edit, contribute to, and/or review for Elsevier journals. On February 27, 2012, Rep. Darrell Issa, in a speech before the House of Representatatives, assured the American people:

As such, we want Americans concerned about access to research and other particpants in this debate to know we will not be taking legislative action on H.R. 3699, the Research Works Act. We do intend to remain involved in efforts to examine and study the protection of intellectual property rights and open access to publicly funded research.”

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.

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.