Property Deals Hut

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Friday, 20 January 2012

BioMed Central opposes Research Works Act

Posted on 08:46 by Unknown
The Open Access publisher BioMed Central (BMC) has just emailed me this statement concerning the controversial Research Works Act (RWA). 

 

BioMed Central strongly supports the NIH's role in enhancing open access through the operation of PubMed Central and through its Public Access Policy for employees and grantees. We are opposed to the RWA's proposal to roll back that policy, and feel that the success of open access publishers such as BioMed Central clearly demonstrates the invalidity of the arguments, made by supporters of the RWA, that public access undermines the ability of publishers to seek fair recompense for the service they provide.

BioMed Central has contributed to the latest OSTP RFIs on public access to peer-reviewed research, and to research data, and we will be posting those responses on the BioMed Central blog shortly.

OASPA [the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association] will be issuing a statement relating to RWA shortly on behalf of its member open access publishers, including BioMed Central.

If passed, the RWA would be a major setback for the Open Access movement, since it would reverse the Public Access Policy introduced by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2005, a policy that requires all NIH-funded research to be made freely accessible online within 12 months. The bill would also prevent other federal agencies from imposing similar requirements on researchers.

It is expected that BMC’s parent company, Springer, will make its position regarding the RWA known at the American Library Association (ALA) meeting in Dallas tomorrow. (Now available here).

Neither BMC nor Springer is a member of the Association of American Publishers (AAP), which supports the RWA. However, a number of AAP members have disavowed the RWA, including MIT Press, ITHAKA, Pennsylvania State University Press, California University Press, Rockefeller University Press, Nature Publishing Group, and the non-profit American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which publishes the journal Science.

Some other AAP members have opted to stay neutral (see here and here).
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in BMC, Research Works Act | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Ann Okerson on the state of Open Access: Where are we, what still needs to be done?
    One of a series exploring the current state of Open Access ( OA ), the Q&A below is with Ann Okerson , Senior Advisor on Electronic Stra...
  • Open Humanities Press to publish OA books
    The Open Humanities Press ( OHP ) announced recently that it is entering the Open Access (OA) book publishing market, launching five new OA ...
  • Open Access: Profile of Eberhard Hilf
    Eberhard (Ebs) Hilf is a true veteran of the Open Access ( OA ) movement. A theoretical physicist based in Oldenburg , Hilf began his advo...
  • Open Access in 2009: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    As 2009 draws to a close advocates of Open Access ( OA ) will doubtless be looking back and weighing up the year's events. So what has b...
  • Open Access mandates: Judging success
    As Alma Swan has graphically demonstrated ( here and here ), mandates have begun to propagate nicely. It is worth noting that many of the...
  • Open Access given Papal Blessing?
    In his latest encyclical letter Pope Benedict XVI argues that rich countries are asserting their intellectual property with "excessiv...
  • Open Access: Whom would you back?
    Open Access ( OA ) advocates will tell you that there are two roads to OA. Green OA consists of researchers continuing to publis...
  • Open Access: Rethinking Harvard
    Last week the architect of Harvard’s Open Access ( OA ) policy, Stuart Shieber stated : “the Harvard open-access policy could not be, shoul...
  • Open Access: A publisher's perspective
    In an article I posted on 10th March I discussed the issue of whether the Green and Gold roads to Open Access ( OA ) should be vi...
  • Open Access: Who pays? How much?
    Last month the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition ( SPARC ) launched a new guide called Who pays for Open Access? Th...

Categories

  • ARC
  • Aspesi
  • Australia
  • Big Deal
  • BioOne
  • BMC
  • BOAI
  • Content Mining
  • COPE
  • CUP
  • Data Mining
  • eBooks
  • Elsevier
  • Free Software
  • FRPAA
  • Gold OA
  • Green OA
  • Harnad
  • India
  • InTech
  • ITHAKA
  • Jayakanth
  • John Wilbanks
  • Journal Prices
  • Library of Congress
  • Mandates
  • Michael Eisen
  • Michael Hart
  • MIT Press
  • Murray-Rust
  • Nature
  • NHMRC
  • NIH
  • OA Advantage
  • OASPA
  • OMICS
  • Open Access
  • Open Society Institute
  • Open Source
  • OSTP
  • Peer Review
  • Peter Suber
  • PLoS
  • PLoS ONE
  • Project Gutenberg
  • Repositories
  • Research
  • Research Works Act
  • Robert Kiley
  • Rockefeller University Press
  • RWA
  • Scholarly Publishing
  • Sciyo
  • Select Committee
  • Serials Crisis
  • SPARC
  • Springer
  • Text Mining
  • UC Press
  • UCL
  • Velterop
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Wiley
  • World Bank

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (31)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (4)
    • ►  September (5)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (9)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ▼  2012 (43)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  July (6)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (7)
    • ▼  January (13)
      • Elsevier needs to get out more
      • The OA interviews: Francis Jayakanth of India’s Na...
      • The Research Works Act: Two more dissenters
      • Springer Statement on the US Research Works Act
      • BioMed Central opposes Research Works Act
      • Library of Congress neutral on the Research Works Act
      • Nature Publishing Group and Digital Science do not...
      • Research Works Act: Cambridge University Press exp...
      • University of California Press differs from AAP o...
      • Can AAP Members stay neutral in the row over the R...
      • Pennsylvania State University Press says No to Res...
      • ITHAKA becomes the second AAP member to disavow th...
      • MIT Press distances itself from Research Works Act
  • ►  2011 (22)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (5)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2010 (20)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2009 (22)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2008 (14)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2007 (9)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2006 (27)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (7)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2005 (31)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (7)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (6)
  • ►  2004 (2)
    • ►  August (2)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile