Open access recall?

A new bill seeks to undo the NIH mandate requiring federally-funded research papers to be made publicly available within 12 months of acceptance for publication. In a hearing yesterday (September 11) the US House Committee on the Judiciary considered whether the mandate violates publishers' copyright. The committee's chairman, John Conyers (D-Mich), sponsored the bill, linkurl:HR6845, titled the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act,;http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6845: which wo

| 2 min read

Register for free to listen to this article
Listen with Speechify
0:00
2:00
Share
A new bill seeks to undo the NIH mandate requiring federally-funded research papers to be made publicly available within 12 months of acceptance for publication. In a hearing yesterday (September 11) the US House Committee on the Judiciary considered whether the mandate violates publishers' copyright. The committee's chairman, John Conyers (D-Mich), sponsored the bill, linkurl:HR6845, titled the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act,;http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6845: which would prohibit federal agencies from requiring a transfer of copyright license for the paper resulting from federal funds. Under the current mandate, researchers give the NIH a non-exclusive license so that manuscripts can be deposited in PubMed Central. Without such a copyright license, the agency can't deposit final manuscripts into the PubMed database and all copyright is maintained, in most cases, by the publisher. The new legislation would "turn back the clock" by prohibiting the NIH from mandating public access as a condition of researchers receiving funding, according to an introductory statement by chairman of the subcommittee considering the issue, Howard Berman, Democratic representative from California. Since the mandate became law in April, submissions to PubMed Central have gone from about 2600 manuscripts per month to about 4000 manuscripts per month, according to the National Library of Medicine. And the compliance is approximately 56%. But linkurl:some publishers have opposed;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54442/ the new mandate and pushed for the NIH to overturn its requirement. Four witnesses presented testimony yesterday: NIH director Elias Zerhouni, Ralph Oman, former US Register of Copyrights; Heather Joseph, director of Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC); and Martin Frank, executive director of the American Physiological Society, that publishes 14 journals. In their testimonies, Zerhouni and Joseph stressed that public access to biomedical research is essential to fully reap the rewards of investing tens of millions of federal tax dollars in research each year. In a particularly dramatic slide presented during his testimony Zerhouni showed the exponential pace of disease-linked gene discovery over the past three years based on the availability of literature in PubMed. "There is no evidence that the mandate damages" publishers' revenues, he said. Oman and Frank countered that when publishers lose their copyright, they lose the incentive to sponsor peer-review. "If publishers go out of business, we lose a valuable resource," said Oman. Frank noted that because the NIH requires final manuscripts to be deposited in PubMed, it essentially takes advantage of the "heavy lifting" that publishers have done to produce the manuscripts, by paying for the peer review process. While the hearing was relatively cordial, there was some minor mudslinging on the record: Joseph referred to the "heavy lifting" in publishing -- the cost of peer review -- as no more than the administrative costs of sending an email to peer-reviewers, and that peer review itself is free. Frank countered that of his $13 million budget to publish 14 journals, 20% is devoted to this "sending of emails." Congress adjourns later this month and is not expected to act on the bill before then.
Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

The Scientist Logo
Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Already a member? Login Here

Meet the Author

  • Andrea Gawrylewski

    This person does not yet have a bio.
Share
Image of a woman in a microbiology lab whose hair is caught on fire from a Bunsen burner.
April 1, 2025, Issue 1

Bunsen Burners and Bad Hair Days

Lab safety rules dictate that one must tie back long hair. Rosemarie Hansen learned the hard way when an open flame turned her locks into a lesson.

View this Issue
Conceptual image of biochemical laboratory sample preparation showing glassware and chemical formulas in the foreground and a scientist holding a pipette in the background.

Taking the Guesswork Out of Quality Control Standards

sartorius logo
An illustration of PFAS bubbles in front of a blue sky with clouds.

PFAS: The Forever Chemicals

sartorius logo
Unlocking the Unattainable in Gene Construction

Unlocking the Unattainable in Gene Construction

dna-script-primarylogo-digital
Concept illustration of acoustic waves and ripples.

Comparing Analytical Solutions for High-Throughput Drug Discovery

sciex

Products

Atelerix

Atelerix signs exclusive agreement with MineBio to establish distribution channel for non-cryogenic cell preservation solutions in China

Green Cooling

Thermo Scientific™ Centrifuges with GreenCool Technology

Thermo Fisher Logo
Singleron Avatar

Singleron Biotechnologies and Hamilton Bonaduz AG Announce the Launch of Tensor to Advance Single Cell Sequencing Automation

Zymo Research Logo

Zymo Research Launches Research Grant to Empower Mapping the RNome