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

From Harvard Open Access Project
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 19: Line 19:
 
* Publishers who reject the RWA but are not members of AAP.
 
* Publishers who reject the RWA but are not members of AAP.
 
*# [http://www.iscb.org/ International Society for Computational Biology]. See the January 11, 2012, [http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2012/01/11/iscb-to-respond-to-research-works-act-hr-3699/ announcement] by B.J. Morrison McKay, ISCB Executive Officer.
 
*# [http://www.iscb.org/ International Society for Computational Biology]. See the January 11, 2012, [http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2012/01/11/iscb-to-respond-to-research-works-act-hr-3699/ announcement] by B.J. Morrison McKay, ISCB Executive Officer.
 +
*# [http://www.aps.org/ American Physical Society].  See the January 13, 2012, [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/opinion/should-research-be-more-freely-available.html 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.
 
*# [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.)
*# [http://www.aps.org/ American Physical Society].  See the January 13, 2012, [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/opinion/should-research-be-more-freely-available.html 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.
 
  
 
* For the online discussion of the RWA, see the articles and comments tagged "[http://www.connotea.org/tag/oa.rwa oa.rwa]" at the [http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_tracking_project OA Tracking Project].
 
* For the online discussion of the RWA, see the articles and comments 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 10:40, 23 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....’ "