background preloader


Facebook Twitter


Support the Open Access Movement: Stop the Research Works Act. Name not displayed, SC Jun 06, 12:15 Ms. Louise Maine, PA May 31, 15:59 As an educator it is important for students to access primary documents. Send a green star Mr. May 08, 15:17 As a researcher and a scientist, I believe people should have wider access to research publications, data, and results. Send a green star Mr. May 06, 14:33 Taxpayers fund the research; the research should be available to taxpayers. Send a green star Mr. Apr 28, 15:41 Cancer patient wishing accessibility to latest research send a green star Name not displayed, NY Apr 26, 17:47 Ms.

Apr 18, 06:36 Why is this issue important to you? Send a green star Mr. Apr 17, 01:32 send a green star Charlotte Clements, New Zealand Mar 21, 23:59 Already scientific research is hidden from those who seek to improve on it, limiting progress on major issues facing the world: poverty, climate change, health, education. Send a green star Mr. Mar 20, 09:30 send a green star Mrs. Mar 13, 10:31 send a green star Dr. Mar 12, 16:07 send a green star Dr. Mrs. Dr. Maximizing the visibility of research outputs: COAR call for action. “With this letter”, says Norbert Lossau, Chair of COAR Executive Board, “The Confederation of Open Access Repositories is joining in the growing protest against Elsevier’s practices opposing open access. We strongly believe that open access will greatly improve the impact and use of scholarly publications, and maximize our collective global investment in research.”

Open Letter to Elsevier The Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) joins the research community in condemning Elsevier for its recent business practices and lobbying that undermine policies and activities promoting open access to scholarly literature. While many commercial publishers are working to adapt their business models to rising demands for open access, Elsevier has systematically acted to counter progress being made in the scholarly community towards this end. One easy way of achieving open access is through the deposit of articles into online open access repositories. Spanish version of the letter. Research. Will Elsevier’s decision to fund a leading opponent of open access kill the paid-for journal? Research Fortnight The open-access movement has been making slow but determined progress in challenging and eroding the dominance of commercial research journals. Its cause has been helped immeasurably by the decision of funding bodies such as the National Institutes of Health in the United States and the Wellcome Trust in the UK to require that grantees deposit copies of research papers in open-access repositories within a year of publication.

Faced with such a demand, commercial journal publishers have had no choice but to comply, though some have done so more reluctantly than others. One publisher that sees itself as a forced convert is the Anglo-Dutch multinational Elsevier. The company, which publishes a range of top-ranked journals, is backing the Research Works Act, a renewed attempt in the US Congress to roll back the open-access requirement. And here’s the rub. . « back. News / Comments / The "Research Works Act" is a distraction that works. Research Works Act. Reception[edit] The bill is supported by the Association of American Publishers (AAP)[13] and the Copyright Alliance.[14] Opponents of the bill stressed particularly the effects of this legislation on the public availability of biomedical research results, such as those funded by NIH grants, submitting that under the new bill "taxpayers who already paid for the research would have to pay again to read the results".[29] Dr.

Mike Taylor from the University of Bristol said that the bill's denial of access to scientific research would cause "preventable deaths in developing countries" and "an incalculable loss to science", and says that Representatives Issa and Maloney are motivated by large donations by the academic publisher Elsevier.[30] Related legislation[edit] The Research Works Act is the latest in a series of attempts to challenge institutional open-access mandates in the US. See also[edit] References[edit] External links[edit] RWA : une nouvelle menace pour l’Open Access. Les éditeurs scientifiques et l’Open Access, ça n’a jamais été le grand amour. Et ce n’est pas près de s’arranger : le 16 décembre dernier, 2 députés américains ont déposé devant la Chambre des Représentants un projet de loi signifiant rien de moins que la fin des politiques publiques visant à garantir à tous l’accès aux résultats de la recherche financée sur fonds publics.

Le Research Works Act (HR3699), c’est son nom, établit notamment la règle suivante : Ce qu’on entend par « travail de recherche issu du secteur privé » est défini dans le projet comme : On rappellera juste que le travail de validation par les pairs, censé être la valeur ajoutée apportée par les éditeurs aux articles est assumé *gratuitement* par des chercheurs, payés eux aussi sur fonds publics… Les éditeurs américains mettent plus d’information de recherche à la disposition de plus de gens, via plus de canaux de diffusion que jamais dans l’histoire. Like this: J'aime chargement… Testify: The Open-Science Movement Catches Fire | Wired Science 

What can we do? Strike. When should we do it? Now. A previous commenter didn’t hold out much hope about librarians doing anything about the house of chicanery that is scholarly publishing. Chicanery? Too strong a word? The Loon thinks not. Consider Elsevier, for instance. There’s at least one thing we can do. So the Loon went trolling about Ulrich’s to find out what library and information journals Elsevier publishes.

+(publisher:(elsevier) publisher:(pergamon) publisher:(academic press)) +(title:(inform*) title:(librar*)) status:(“A”) A couple of regular expressions, a dedupe, and a line sort produced the list following: Speaking plainly: This is war. Perhaps the Loon’s readers would help flesh out this list, and provide approved (open-access, where possible) alternatives to the journals on it.