tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post2064644041134952422..comments2024-03-17T08:30:21.129+00:00Comments on Open and Shut?: Can AAP Members stay neutral in the row over the Research Works Act?Richard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-18895245594949317452012-01-17T14:20:14.743+00:002012-01-17T14:20:14.743+00:00To Arno Bosse: Can you get permission to make the...To Arno Bosse: Can you get permission to make the Chicago statement public?Peter Suberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09215193195989071335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-62581668466800451122012-01-17T09:27:02.082+00:002012-01-17T09:27:02.082+00:00I contacted the University of Chicago Press (my al...I contacted the University of Chicago Press (my alma mater) with much the same questions. <br /><br />They do not endorse the RWA or past legislation aimed at the NIH Public Access Policy. They are fully compliant with the NIH mandates and have no plans to change this. However they don't expect to leave the AAP over this issue.Arno Bossehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00730878260357491425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-26394622025455022402012-01-17T04:31:20.854+00:002012-01-17T04:31:20.854+00:00Of course AAP members can stay neutral over RWA or...Of course AAP members can stay neutral over RWA or, for that matter, anything else. Is this simply a rhetorical question intended to imbue this tiny matter with a sense of urgency? I have no opinion of RWA myself (though I deplore the NIH policy that triggered it), but I am not a member of the AAP, so perhaps it doesn't matter.Joseph J. Espositohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08145533628249713557noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-47831220536190501492012-01-13T20:32:17.763+00:002012-01-13T20:32:17.763+00:00Richard,
Thanks for all your work. You can add Ro...Richard,<br /><br />Thanks for all your work. You can add Rockefeller University Press to MIT and Penn State. Executive Director Mike Possner wrote the following letter to Carolyn Maloney.<br /><br />pdf version: http://www.mediafire.com/?vu7ng37vkamxxzg <br /><br />Dear Representative Maloney,<br /><br />I am the Executive Director of The Rockefeller University Press, a nonprofit organization that publishes three biomedical research journals. I am contacting you as a publisher and as your constituent in the 14th Congressional District of New York to express my strong opposition to the Research Works Act (H.R. 3699), which you and Representative Issa introduced into the House on December 16, 2011.<br /><br />I want to state emphatically that I support the NIH Public Access Policy and think it should be expanded to other federal funding agencies. All publishers of biomedical research understand several truths: 1) that their content is generated in large part through federally funded research, 2) that the peer review process is carried out in large part by federally funded individuals, and 3) that a significant portion of their subscription revenue is obtained from government funded institutions. Although publishers’ content may technically be considered “private-sector research work” as described in the text of H.R. 3699, its very existence depends on public funding.<br /><br />Some publishers believe they have an obligation to give back to the public that has provided those funds, and, even before the NIH mandate, they made their online content free after a short delay under subscription control. However, a few large, highly profitable publishers refused to do this voluntarily and thus forced the NIH into the position of mandating deposition of NIH-funded research publications in PubMed Central to make them available to the public.<br /><br />At The Rockefeller University Press, we have released the content of our three journals to the public six months after publication since January, 2001, and our subscription revenues have grown since then. All of the content in our journals is released to the public, regardless of funding source. We are not aware of any data indicating that subscription revenues of biomedical research journal publishers have been directly and negatively affected by the NIH mandate.<br /><br />Enacting a law that prohibits federal funding agencies from mandating public access to the results of the research they fund will deprive the public of important information that is rightly theirs. Although this Act has been supported by the Association of American Publishers (AAP), it is vital that members of Congress know that not all members of this Association agree with their position. The Rockefeller University Press is a member of the AAP, but we strongly oppose H.R. 3699.<br /><br />Yours sincerely,<br />Mike Rossner, Ph.D.<br />Executive Director<br />The Rockefeller University Press<br /><br />These comments are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of The Rockefeller University.Bennoreply@blogger.com