Comments on: The Scholarly Poor could lose access to scientific research; this is serious http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/01/06/the-scholarly-poor-could-lose-access-to-scientific-research-this-is-serious/ A Scientist and the Web Thu, 23 May 2013 17:43:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Thomas http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/01/06/the-scholarly-poor-could-lose-access-to-scientific-research-this-is-serious/#comment-102357 Thomas Mon, 09 Jan 2012 06:55:11 +0000 http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/01/06/the-scholarly-poor-could-lose-access-to-scientific-research-this-is-serious/#comment-102357 Hopefully this will, in the long run lesd to a reaction in the sci. community in favour of open access journals that can take up the struggle with the for profit publishers Hopefully this will, in the long run lesd to a reaction in the sci. community in favour of open access journals that can take up the struggle with the for profit publishers

]]> By: Stevan Harnad http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/01/06/the-scholarly-poor-could-lose-access-to-scientific-research-this-is-serious/#comment-102340 Stevan Harnad Sun, 08 Jan 2012 00:18:01 +0000 http://blogs.ch.cam.ac.uk/pmr/2012/01/06/the-scholarly-poor-could-lose-access-to-scientific-research-this-is-serious/#comment-102340 See: "Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again" http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.html EXCERPT: The US Research Works Act (H.R.3699): "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; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work." Translation and Comments: "If public tax money is used to fund research, that research becomes "private research" once a publisher "adds value" to it by managing the peer review." [Comment: Researchers do the peer review for the publisher for free, just as researchers give their papers to the publisher for free, together with the exclusive right to sell subscriptions to it, on-paper and online, seeking and receiving no fee or royalty in return]. "Since that public research has thereby been transformed into "private research," and the publisher's property, the government that funded it with public tax money should not be allowed to require the funded author to make it accessible for free online for those users who cannot afford subscription access." [Comment: The author's sole purpose in doing and publishing the research, without seeking any fee or royalties, is so that all potential users can access, use and build upon it, in further research and applications, to the benefit of the public that funded it; this is also the sole purpose for which public tax money is used to fund research.]" H.R. 3699 misunderstands the secondary, service role that peer-reviewed research journal publishing plays in US research and development and its (public) funding…. http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.html See:
“Research Works Act H.R.3699:
The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again”

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.html

EXCERPT:

The US Research Works Act (H.R.3699):

“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; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work.”

Translation and Comments:

“If public tax money is used to fund research, that research becomes “private research” once a publisher “adds value” to it by managing the peer review.”

[Comment: Researchers do the peer review for the publisher for free, just as researchers give their papers to the publisher for free, together with the exclusive right to sell subscriptions to it, on-paper and online, seeking and receiving no fee or royalty in return].

“Since that public research has thereby been transformed into “private research,” and the publisher’s property, the government that funded it with public tax money should not be allowed to require the funded author to make it accessible for free online for those users who cannot afford subscription access.”

[Comment: The author's sole purpose in doing and publishing the research, without seeking any fee or royalties, is so that all potential users can access, use and build upon it, in further research and applications, to the benefit of the public that funded it; this is also the sole purpose for which public tax money is used to fund research.]”

H.R. 3699 misunderstands the secondary, service role that peer-reviewed research journal publishing plays in US research and development and its (public) funding….

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/867-guid.html

]]>