Advertisement

Publishers Fight Open Access Bill

The Federal Research Public Access Act faces stiff opposition from the Association American of Publishers.

By | March 6, 2012

The US Capitol BuildingWIKIMEDIA COMMONS, KMCCOY

Dozens of scholarly journal publishers have voiced their opposition to an open access bill in the US Congress. The bill, called the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA), would require any research supported by federal money to be deposited in a publicly accessible online repository within 6 months of publication.

The 81 signatories of letters, drafted and sent to the House of Representatives and Senate by the Association of American Publishers (AAP), included multi-title publishing giants, such as Elsevier, the American Chemical Society, and Springer Publishing Company, along with small society and association publishers, such as the American Fisheries Society and the American Association of Immunologists.

"FRPAA is little more than an attempt at intellectual eminent domain, but without fair compensation to authors and publishers," said AAP president and CEO Tom Allen in a statement. In addition to putting their own bottom lines in peril, the publishing trade group explains that FRPAA "imposes additional costs on all federal agencies by requiring them to divert critical research funding to the creation and management of new databases, archives, and infrastructure to handle dissemination of these articles—functions already being performed by private-sector publishers."

The AAP aired this anti-FRPAA sentiment about a week after its largest member, Elsevier, dropped their support of a parallel anti-open access bill, the Research Works Act, which would have made policies that require making published, federally funded research freely available illegal. Just a few hours later, the bill met an untimely death in a House committee.

Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Stevan Harnad

Stevan Harnad

Posts: 6

March 7, 2012

THE CASE FOR THE OPEN ACCESS BILL:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 7, 2012

THE CASE FOR THE OPEN ACCESS BILL:
http://openaccess.eprints.org/...

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 8, 2012

Please note that "The Springer Publishing Company" (www.springerpub.com) listed as a signatory to the AAP's letter (referred to in the article above) is a different company to Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com), which is not a signatory to the letter.
Thanks, Eric Merkel-Sobotta, Springer Science+Business Media

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 8, 2012

 important to know this. I was close to adding Springer.com to my boycotted editors (see: http://thecostofknowledge.com/...

Avatar of: SpringerEMS

SpringerEMS

Posts: 1

March 8, 2012

Please note that "The Springer Publishing Company" (www.springerpub.com) listed as a signatory to the AAP's letter (referred to in the article above) is a different company to Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com), which is not a signatory to the letter.
Thanks, Eric Merkel-Sobotta, Springer Science+Business Media

Avatar of: gekr

gekr

Posts: 1

March 8, 2012

 important to know this. I was close to adding Springer.com to my boycotted editors (see: http://thecostofknowledge.com/...

Avatar of: JQ Johnson

JQ Johnson

Posts: 1

March 20, 2012

One very strange part of the AAP claim is that federal policies put their bottom lines at risk.  There is *no* evidence that the NIH mandate has hurt the commercial biomed scholarly publishers, and indeed many of them are experiencing record profits.  Meanwhile, the NIH mandate has been successful in creating a host of new publishers (think of PLoS, for example).

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

March 20, 2012

One very strange part of the AAP claim is that federal policies put their bottom lines at risk.  There is *no* evidence that the NIH mandate has hurt the commercial biomed scholarly publishers, and indeed many of them are experiencing record profits.  Meanwhile, the NIH mandate has been successful in creating a host of new publishers (think of PLoS, for example).

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Myriad RBM
Myriad RBM
Advertisement
The Scientist
The Scientist