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].
 
* For the online discussion of the RWA, see the comments and articles tagged "[http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa.rwa oa.rwa]" at the [http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_tracking_project OA Tracking Project].
 
  
 
* 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.
Line 23: Line 21:
 
*# [http://sca.culanth.org/ Society for Cultural Anthropology]. See the January 18, 2012, [http://savageminds.org/2012/01/17/the-question-is-not-does-but-can/#comment-715385 announcement] adopted unanimously by the SCA Executive Board.
 
*# [http://sca.culanth.org/ Society for Cultural Anthropology]. See the January 18, 2012, [http://savageminds.org/2012/01/17/the-question-is-not-does-but-can/#comment-715385 announcement] adopted unanimously by the SCA Executive Board.
 
*# [http://www.biomedcentral.com/ BioMed Central]. See the January 20, 2012, [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2012/01/biomed-central-opposes-research-works.html announcement].  (Note that [http://www.springer.com/ Springer], BMC's parent company, [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2012/01/springer-statement-on-us-research-works.html supports] the RWA.)
 
*# [http://www.biomedcentral.com/ BioMed Central]. See the January 20, 2012, [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2012/01/biomed-central-opposes-research-works.html announcement].  (Note that [http://www.springer.com/ Springer], BMC's parent company, [http://poynder.blogspot.com/2012/01/springer-statement-on-us-research-works.html supports] the RWA.)
 +
 +
* For the online discussion of the RWA, see the comments and articles tagged "[http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa.rwa oa.rwa]" at the [http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_tracking_project OA Tracking Project].

Revision as of 22:37, 21 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....’ "