#frpaa

[libraryadvocates]

If passed, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR) would:

Require federal departments and agencies with an annual extramural research budget of $100 million to develop a policy to ensure researchers submit an electronic copy of the final manuscript accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Ensure that the manuscript is preserved in a stable digital repository maintained by that agency or in another suitable repository that permits free public access, interoperability, and long-term preservation.

Require that each taxpayer-funded manuscript be made available to the public online and without cost, no later than six months after the article has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Require agencies to examine whether introducing open licensing options for research papers they make publicly available as a result of the public access policy would promote productive reuse and computational analysis of those research papers.

In essence, this legislation would advance and expand the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy implemented in 2008 which requires public access to taxpayer-funded research to an additional 11 agencies.

Please take the time to thank those who have already signed on to support FASTR and use the ALA’s Legislative Action Center to ask your representatives to cosponsor the bills.

[libraryadvocates]

The proposed bill would level the playing field of access. The public has already funded the research locked behind the paywall. They shouldn’t have to pay a second time to access this research.

Corey Williams

[stephenfrancoeur]

Pull quote: "Boycotts and start-ups can fail. Whether you call it an Academic Spring or something else, it looks to me like we've reached the point where it won't ultimately matter if some of them do fail. You can lock up content, but you can't close up a scholarly culture that's more and more interested in openness. That culture won't be satisfied with just being told that copyright is good and piracy is bad. Publishers, how will you adapt?"

[libraryadvocates]

On Tuesday, FRPAA picked up a whopping 24 additional co-sponsors (yes, both democrats and republicans) – joining Rep. Mike Doyle (D- PA), Rep. Lacy Clay (D-MO) and Rep. Kevin Yoder (R-KS), the original co-sponsors who introduced the bill.  Among the additional co-sponsors backing the bill was Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), who was presented with the 2012 James Madison Award by the American Library Association (ALA) during the annual Freedom of Information Day event held here in Washington, DC on March 16.  Rep. Lofgren was recognized for her work on supporting a wide range of library-related issues, including open access and FRPAA legislation.

Then on Thursday the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight added to its schedule a hearing for March 29 at 10:00 a.m. on Examining Public Access and Scholarly Publication Interests.  Additional information about the upcoming hearing, including the list of witnesses and a link to the webcast, is available here.

The ALA has a strong history of support for FRPAA legislation – as it builds on the success of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy implemented in 2008.  Passage of H.R. 4004 and its companion in the Senate, S. 2096, would be big step in the right direction by expanding the amount of research made available and proving access to it without additional charge to us, the taxpayers. Background on this legislation is available on the ALA website.

[stephenfrancoeur]

Pull quote: “To publish in the reputable open-access journal PLoS ONE costs a publication fee of $1,350. Other open-access journals average a bit less, around $906. To publish in an Elsevier journal, on the other hand, appears to cost some $10,500. In 2011, 78 percent of Elsevier’s total revenue, or £1,605 million, was contributed by journal subscriptions. In the same year, Elsevier published 240,000 articles, making the average cost per article some £6,689, or about $10,500 US. So to publish behind a paywall with Elsevier—and make your work available to only some other researchers and no members of the public—costs nearly eight times more than publishing openly with PLoS. It’s apparent that we are not getting value for money from the traditional academic publishers.”

[stephenfrancoeur]

Pull quote: "Tom Allen, president and CEO of AAP, said in a statement, 'We have always advocated that long-needed dialogue about public access to federally-funded research will be best addressed through the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy process as created by Congress, not through legislation such as FRPAA and the Research Works Act.' Despite this, the AAP endorsed the RWA in December 2011."

So now the AAP is opposed to RWA now that it's dead. How conveeeeenient.

[arlpolicynotes-blog]

What if some publishers find it unacceptable for the public to have access? They may opt out. …If publishers believe for any reason that the NIH policy creates costs or risks that exceed the benefits, then they may refuse to publish NIH-funded authors. The same will be true under FRPAA. Neither policy affects a publisher's fundamental right to refuse to publish any work for any reason.

Peter Suber - Google - Publisher opposition to FRPAA 81 publishers have sent an…

[stephenfrancoeur]

Pull quote: "'One thing is for sure, [Heather] Joseph told PW, 'the nature of the conversation on the [public access] issue has changed. The RWA debacle has helped to engage researchers on this issue in droves, so we’re seeing a more substantive discussion of how opening up access to this information helps scientists do their work.'"