Notes on the Research Works Act

• This page is part of the Harvard Open Access Project (HOAP).
• Suggested short URL for this page = bit.ly/hoap-rwa
• Also see Notes on the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA).

The bill itself

• The Research Works Act (HR 3699) would repeal the OA policy at the NIH and block similar policies at other federal agencies.

• The main section (Section 2) is brief: "No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that -- (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work."

• Follow the RWA in:
  • GovTrack.us
  • OpenCongress
  • PopVox
  • THOMAS

Sponsorship

• The RWA was introduced in the House of Representatives by Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) on December 16, 2011, and referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  • Contact Issa's office.
  • Contact Maloney's office
  • Members of House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and their contact information.

• According to MapLight (Money and Politics Light), Elsevier has given two campaign contributions to Issa and 12 to Maloney for the 2012 campaign cycle. Out of 31 contributions Elsevier has made to House members for this cycle, 14 or 45% have gone to Issa and Maloney.

• According to OpenSecrets, Elsevier is the second-to-the-top contributor to Maloney for the 2012 campaign cycle.

Publisher opposition

• The Association of American Publishers (AAP) endorsed the RWA, and lobbies for it in the name of its members. However, the AAP did not consult its members before endorsing the bill, and we don't know how many AAP members actually support it.

• This section tries to track the publishers who have publicly opposed the bill.

• AAP members who oppose the RWA (chronological by announcement date):
  1. MIT Press. See the announcement from Ellen Faran, Director of MIT Press. January 11, 2012.
  2. ITHAKA. See the announcement, January 12, 2012.
  3. Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR). See the announcement, January 12, 2012.
  4. Penn State University Press. See the announcement from Patrick Alexander, Director of the Penn State University Press, January 12, 2012.
  5. Rockefeller University Press. See the announcement from Mike Rossner, Executive Director of Rockefeller University Press, January 13, 2012.
  6. University of California Press. See the announcement from Alison Mudditt, Director of the University of California Press, January 13, 2012.
  7. Nature Publishing Group and Digital Science. See the joint announcement from Steven Inchcoombe, Managing Director for NPG, and Timo Hannay, Managing Director for Digital Science, January 18, 2012. (Digital Science is a sister company of NPG.)
  8. Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). See the announcement from Ginger Pinholster, Director of the AAAS Office of Public Programs, and Alan Leshner, AAAS Chief Executive Officer, January 18, 2012.
  9. Modern Language Association. See the announcement from Michael Bérubé, President of the MLA, January 25, 2012.
  10. American Institute of Physics. See the AIP's announcement (undated but released on January 31, 2012).
  11. John Wiley & Sons. See the statement Wiley allowed Richard Poynder to post to his blog, February 10, 2012.

• AAP members who apparently oppose the RWA, but whose positions require confirmation
  1. 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.
  2. 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....’ "
  3. American Anthropological Association. On February 3, 2012, the AAA Executive Committee issued a statement opposing "any Congressional legislation which, if it were enacted, imposes a blanket prohibition against open access publishing policies by all federal agencies." On the one hand, this description taken literally does not describe the RWA. On the other, this interpretation of the RWA is very common and might have been held by the AAA Executive Committee.

• Publishers who oppose the RWA but are not members of AAP
  1. International Society for Computational Biology. See the January 11, 2012, announcement from B.J. Morrison McKay, ISCB Executive Officer.
  2. American Physical Society. See the January 13, 2012, announcement in a letter to the NY Times by Gene Sprouse and Joseph Serene, the editor in chief and treasurer-publisher of the American Physical Society.
  3. Society for Cultural Anthropology. See the January 18, 2012, announcement adopted unanimously by the SCA Executive Board.
  4. BioMed Central. See the January 20, 2012, announcement. (Note that Springer, BMC's parent company, supports the RWA.)
  5. Public Library of Science. See the January 24, 2012, announcement it issued jointly with nine other US organizations.
  6. American Society of Plant Biologists. See the January 30, 2012, announcement from Crispin Taylor, Executive Director of the ASPB.
  7. Association of American University Presses (AAUP). See its February 14, 2012 announcement. (We list the AAUP here because it is not itself a member of the AAP, though many of its members are members of the AAP.)

Other opposition

Limited to major statements.

• Ten US library, publishing, and public-interest organizations: American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries, Association of College and Research Libraries, Association of Research Libraries, Creative Commons, Greater Western Library Alliance, Public Knowledge, Public Library of Science, and the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC). See their January 24, 2012, joint open letter to Congress.

• The Association of American Universities (AAU) and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU). See their February 6, 2012, joint open letter to Congress.

• Brown University. See the February 7, 2012 article in the Brown student newspaper.

• Seven public-health groups: Knowledge Ecology International, American Medical Student Association, Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative, Health Action International, Medecins Sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders, Public Citizen, and Universities Allied for Essential Medicines. See their February 8, 2012, joint open letter to Congress.

• Twenty-six higher-education, library, and public-interest organizations: American Association of University Professors, American Historical Association, American Library Association, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Californians Aware, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Community Research, Cost of Government Center, Defending Dissent Foundation, Demand Progress, Doctor Patient Medical Association, Essential Information, Humanist Society of New Mexico, iSolon.org, Mine Safety and Health News, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Coalition for History, OMB Watch, OpenTheGovernment.org, Progressive Librarians Guild, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Rutherford Institute, Sage Information Services, Society of American Archivists, Society of Professional Journalists, Special Libraries Association, Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University, Utah Foundation for Open Government, Washington Coalition for Open Government, and the William A. Wise Law Library at the University of Colorado Law School. See their February 9, 2012, joint open letter to Congress.

• The eleven provosts of the universities in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC): University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Indiana University, University of Iowa, University of Michigan, Michigan State University, University of Minnesota, University of Nebraska at Lincoln, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison. See their joint statement, February 23, 2012.

Action against the RWA

• See the action alert against the RWA from the Alliance for Taxpayer Access (ATA).
  • The ATA legislative action center has a modifiable, click-ready letter to legislators in opposition to RWA.

• See the petition against the RWA at the Care2 Petition Site. Online since c. January 14, 2012.

• See the petition against the RWA at We The People, the White House petition site. Online since January 23, 2012. If the petition gathers 25k signatures, the Obama administration will review it and issue an official response.

• Any letter to Congress opposing the RWA should be part of a letter in support of the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA).

Discussion

• At the OA Tracking Project, see the articles and comments tagged with oa.rwa.

• On Google+, see the posts tagged with #rwa.

• On Twitter, see the posts tagged with #rwa.