Notes on the Research Works Act: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
* The [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr3699 Research Works Act] (HR 3699) would repeal the [http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ OA policy] at the [http://www.nih.gov/ NIH] and block similar policies at other federal agencies. It was introduced in the House by by [http://issa.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=597&Itemid=73 Darrell Issa] (R-CA) and [https://maloney.house.gov/contact-me/email-me Carolyn Maloney] (D-NY) on December 16, 2011, and referred to the [http://goo.gl/GP0m0 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform]. | * The [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr3699 Research Works Act] (HR 3699) would repeal the [http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ OA policy] at the [http://www.nih.gov/ NIH] and block similar policies at other federal agencies. It was introduced in the House by by [http://issa.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=597&Itemid=73 Darrell Issa] (R-CA) and [https://maloney.house.gov/contact-me/email-me Carolyn Maloney] (D-NY) on December 16, 2011, and referred to the [http://goo.gl/GP0m0 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform]. | ||
* The [http://www.publishers.org/ Association of American Publishers] (AAP) has [http://goo.gl/aaVnw endorsed] the bill. However, the AAP did not consult its [http://publishers.org/members/ members] before endorsing the bill, and it's unclear how many AAP members actually support | * The [http://www.publishers.org/ Association of American Publishers] (AAP) has [http://goo.gl/aaVnw endorsed] the bill. However, the AAP did not consult its [http://publishers.org/members/ members] before endorsing the bill, and it's unclear how many AAP members actually support the bill. | ||
* Here's a list of AAP members who have publicly disavowed the AAP position on RWA (chronological by announcement date): | * Here's a list of AAP members who have publicly disavowed the AAP position on RWA (chronological by announcement date): | ||
Revision as of 09:45, 17 January 2012
- The Research Works Act (HR 3699) would repeal the OA policy at the NIH and block similar policies at other federal agencies. It was introduced in the House by by Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) on December 16, 2011, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- The Association of American Publishers (AAP) has endorsed the bill. However, the AAP did not consult its members before endorsing the bill, and it's unclear how many AAP members actually support the bill.
- Here's a list of AAP members who have publicly disavowed the AAP position on RWA (chronological by announcement date):
- MIT Press. Disavowal announced January 11, 2012, by Ellen Faran, Director of MIT Press.
- ITHAKA. Disavowal announced January 12, 2012.
- Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR). Disavowal announced January 12, 2012.
- Penn State University Press. Disavowal announced January 12, 2012, by Patrick Alexander, Director of the Penn State University Press.
- Rockefeller University Press. Disavowal announced January 13, 2012, by Mike Rossner, Executive Director of Rockefeller University Press.
- University of California Press. Disavowal announced January 13, 2012, by Alison Mudditt, Director of the University of California Press,
- Here's a list of hints, borderline cases, and near misses. With more information, they could move to the list above.
- University of Chicago Press. In a January 17, 2012, comment on Richard Poynder's blog, Arno Bosse reports that the U of Chicago Press told him that it does not support RWA. But Bosse doesn't speak for the press and doesn't quote a statement from the press.
- Cambridge University Press. A week after CUP told Richard Poynder that "it is too early for us to make any public statements" on RWA, Poynder was allowed (January 17, 2012) to share this statement from Peter Davison, CUP's Director of Corporate Affairs: "Cambridge University Press has submitted testimony to the United States Office of Science and Technology in response to the Request for Information (2011-28623) on subjects related to HR 3699. Our testimony is not identical to the position adopted by the Association of American Publishers. In particular, we write: ‘We support all sustainable access models that ensure the permanence and integrity of the scholarly record... The Bill as proposed could undermine the underlying freedoms expected by and of scholarly authors....’ "