Another step backwards

[Blayz]

Publishers Back Bill to Ban Public Access Mandates to Federally Funded Research

"The Research Works Act will prohibit federal agencies from unauthorized free public dissemination of journal articles that report on research which, to some degree, has been federally-funded but is produced and published by private sector publishers"

Yeah, publishers produce research the same way publishers produce fiction. In other words, not at all. Public access is the best thing to happen to research for a while. Horrible to see a bipartisan effort to kill it.

 

[Orogeny]

What a disgrace.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Articles should be published online by the university/institute and/or funding bodies. This would need a change in peer-review but I think it would be for the best.

 

[RickG]

Publishers Back Bill to Ban Public Access Mandates to Federally Funded Research

"The Research Works Act will prohibit federal agencies from unauthorized free public dissemination of journal articles that report on research which, to some degree, has been federally-funded but is produced and published by private sector publishers"

Yeah, publishers produce research the same way publishers produce fiction. In other words, not at all. Public access is the best thing to happen to research for a while. Horrible to see a bipartisan effort to kill it.

You are missing the big picture. Most research is funded at least in part by some governmental funds. Most peer review journals exist solely for the purpose of publishing good science, i.e. non profit. They also have extremely low subscription support because they target only a small group. They only way they can exist is to charge a high subscription fee or require a paywall fee for non subscribers. If they cannot support themselves they cannot exist. If they have to open all of that free to the public they have no means of existing and science back tracks. Would you rather research be published by the government without peer review? What a mess.

That doesn't mean the public can't get raw data from research, indeed they can via the freedom of information act. What publishers want to restrict is "free" public access to their published journal articles because that is how they survive.

 

[Blayz]

You are missing the big picture.

Speaking as someone that works in the field, not I am not.

Asking that the research be released after one year is not that onerous, like a new car or a TV show, the value drops off quickly immediately after it is driven off the lot/aired for the first time.

And whilst I have no actual problem with pay-per-view journals, there are a whole heap of entirely open access journals out there, such as the PLoS series, who seem to do quite fine without restricting access nor dying the financial death you describe.

 

[RickG]

Speaking as someone that works in the field, not I am not.

Asking that the research be released after one year is not that onerous, like a new car or a TV show, the value drops off quickly immediately after it is driven off the lot/aired for the first time.

And whilst I have no actual problem with pay-per-view journals, there are a whole heap of entirely open access journals out there, such as the PLoS series, who seem to do quite fine without restricting access nor dying the financial death you describe.

The research is fully accessible from the parent organization or institution through the freedom of information act. Most researchers also will freely give access to their research upon request just for the asking. There is no need to make a ridiculous mandate to peer review journals, even a year after publication. The robustness of a peer review article does not go away after a year or even many years. Nevertheless, many journals do offer open access if the author(s) are willing to pay the open access fee. On the other hand, PNAS occasionally gives open access free of change to anyone when an article is of particular public interest. Also, some offer open access for a limited time.

 

[cupid dave]

You are missing the big picture.

What publishers want to restrict is "free" public access to their published journal articles because that is how they survive.

.."free"...

So you point is that they ought be paid?

I agree.
We need to hear what science says without any restrictions or censureship.