Here in the United States, open access advocates are struggling mightily to make the case that taxpayers are entitled to the research their taxes fund — and that open access is good for innovation, industry (well, except possibly the high-profit publishing industry…), and the world of ideas. Basically, it’s a deathmatch between the public and publishers, which have so far succeeded in sowing enough confusion to kill FRPAA in Congress and Senate and TAPFR in New York State.
(But all is not lost. FRPAA’s been revived as FASTR; there’s hope for TAPFR moving forward; and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a memorandum instructing all federal agencies with research and development expenditures over $100 million to develop plans to make the results of federally-funded research freely available within 12 months of publication.)
Los investigadores, tecnólogos, docentes, becarios de posdoctorado y estudiantes de maestría y doctorado cuya actividad de investigación sea financiada con fondos públicos, deberán depositar o autorizar expresamente el depósito de una copia de la versión final de su producción científico-tecnológica publicada o aceptada para publicación y/o que haya atravesado un proceso de aprobación por una autoridad competente o con jurisdicción en la materia, en los repositorios digitales de acceso abierto de sus instituciones, en un plazo no mayor a los seis (6) meses desde la fecha de su publicación oficialo de su aprobación.
A discussion draft of the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology Act of 2013 (FIRST), currently being circulated within the House Science Committee, would impose significant barriers to the public’s ability to access taxpayer funded research by restricting federal science agencies’ ability to provide timely, equitable, online access to articles and data reporting on the results of research that they support.
One provision of the proposed bill – Section 302 – would extend the embargo period after which federally funded research must be made freely available to up to three years after publication. This extension would undercut federal agencies’ ability to effectively implement the widely-supported White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Directive on Public Access to the Results of Federally Funded Research, undermine the public access program pioneered by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and significantly hurt the utility of US public access policy.
You can learn more about Section 302 of the proposed FIRST Act and how it would delay public access to publicly funded research on the SPARC website.
SPARC asks supporters of Open Access to take the following steps to ensure Section 302 doesn’t roll back the White House Directive:
Tweet at your legislators to oppose Section 302 of the FIRST Act and directly at Representative Lamar Smith (@LamarSmithTX21), Chairman of the House Science Committee. [I did it! Now you!]
Forward this call to action or a link to the SPARC action page for the FIRST Act to friends, colleagues, and email lists. Post about the bill to personal or organizational social media channels.
Write an op-ed or letter to the editor about Section 302 of the FIRST Act for your local or campus newspaper, blog, or other publication outlet.
It’s a busy day, so I hope that copying and pasting their email counts as blogging about the issue. I wholeheartedly agree that Section 302 of the FIRST Act would be disastrous for science, industry, academia, and the overall world of ideas, even if I don’t have time just now to state that opposition in my own carefully constructed language…
Lots of things have been moving recently surrounding open access. Here are just a few bits of news we’re excited about, many of which were brought to our attention and celebrated by our fellow CUNY librarians: