Difference between revisions of "Notes on the Research Works Act"

From Harvard Open Access Project
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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].
 +
** [http://goo.gl/GjZlN Elsevier gave money directly to Issa and Maloney].  For the 2012 campaign cycle, Elsevier gave two campaign contributions to Issa and 12 to Maloney. Out of 31 contributions Elsevier made to House members for this cycle, 14 or 45% went to Issa and Maloney. 
  
 
* 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.
 
* 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.

Revision as of 14:21, 24 January 2012

  • AAP members who apparently reject 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....’ "