March 18, 2009
John
Willinsky
A (Publishing) House Divided: Scholarly Publishers in Support and Opposition to Public Access to Research
by John Willinsky
March 18, 2009
I wasn’t surprised to learn that the American Association of Publishers had sent a letter [PDF ] to then President-elect Obama in December opposing the National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy, which requires any NIH-funded researchers to deposit a copy of what they have discovered and published in a publicly accessible archive. The AAP publishers association holds that the NIH Policy infringes on their business rights, insofar as it grants the public a right to this publicly funded work, and in support of their objections, Rep. John Conyers, Democrat of Michigan, has reintroduced into Congress the questionably entitled Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, HR 801 which would make it illegal for the federal government to institute such measures as the NIH Public Access Policy. There has been a minor blog-storm objecting to this un-Obama like move. To the welcomed outcry against this regressive legislative proposal, I have but a couple of points to add.
First, one has to appreciate that this National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy already includes considerable concessions to publishers who would use this research to generate a profit margin or sustain a scholarly society. Not only does the NIH Policy ensure that “public access” only takes place 12 months after publication, but that what is made public is only the author’s final draft. That would seem sufficient to protect the value of journal subscriptions, while recognizing the rights of the public to at least second-class access. It is thus unfair for the AAP to claim that “the NIH mandate severely diminishes both the market and copyright protection for these copyrighted works to which not-for-profit and commercial publishers have made significant value-added contributions,” as the AAP letter advises the president. What significant contribution to this research warrants 100% ownership over the results, with no allowance for any government and public, and scientific claim to this work? Is this outright ownership of science putting science in its rightful place, as President Obama promised in his inaugural address?
Clearly, one can get worked up about publisher claims, but this tendency to condemn an entire industry is misguided, as it turns out. This brings me to my second modest contribution to the debate over this bill. For what also needs to be made clear is that the scholarly publishing industry is itself divided over this open access thing. The proof lies with the 533 journals in the life sciences — from Advances in Urology to The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine — that currently offer to help authors deposit the published copy (not the final draft) in PubMed Central for the authors, where they are made freely available 12 months after publication. And then there are the 43 journals of the Nature Publishing Group, which will deposit the author’s final draft in PubMed Central for the author, as well as the 28 society and academic journals published by this group. Even the goliaths of corporate publishers — Springer, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor and Francis, and Sage — offer options that allow authors to pay for immediate open access which includes depositing the work in PubMed Central in happy compliance with the NIH policy. (I have set out elsewhere the financial threat posed by the corporate publisher’s open access models to research as they increase their hold on scholarly publishing).
It is hard for the American Association of Publishers to claim, on behalf of publishers, that the NIH Public Access Policy allows “the NIH to unfairly compete directly with private sector journal publishers,” when so many publishers are helping authors comply with the policy. (Or at least, one cannot claim it unless one cynically suspects publishers are hedging their every bet by lobbying to defeat the policy, while making a show of supporting it to attract and appease authors.)
We need to bring to John Conyers’ attention, well as the Acts other sponsors, that even the special-interest basis for advancing the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act has been seriously undermined by the many publishers who are happy to work with the NIH Public Access Policy. And we need to commend these far-sighted scholarly publishers who find it in their interest to help authors take advantage of the NIH Public Access Policy, thereby restoring science to its open and public place in this democracy, to riff on President Obama’s inaugural address.
I wasn’t surprised to learn that the American Association of Publishers had sent a letter [PDF ] to then President-elect Obama in December opposing the National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy, which requires any NIH-funded researchers to deposit a copy of what they have discovered and published in a publicly accessible archive. The AAP publishers association holds that the NIH Policy infringes on their business rights, insofar as it grants the public a right to this publicly funded work, and in support of their objections, Rep. John Conyers, Democrat of Michigan, has reintroduced into Congress the questionably entitled Fair Copyright in Research Works Act, HR 801 which would make it illegal for the federal government to institute such measures as the NIH Public Access Policy. There has been a minor blog-storm objecting to this un-Obama like move. To the welcomed outcry against this regressive legislative proposal, I have but a couple of points to add.
First, one has to appreciate that this National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy already includes considerable concessions to publishers who would use this research to generate a profit margin or sustain a scholarly society. Not only does the NIH Policy ensure that “public access” only takes place 12 months after publication, but that what is made public is only the author’s final draft. That would seem sufficient to protect the value of journal subscriptions, while recognizing the rights of the public to at least second-class access. It is thus unfair for the AAP to claim that “the NIH mandate severely diminishes both the market and copyright protection for these copyrighted works to which not-for-profit and commercial publishers have made significant value-added contributions,” as the AAP letter advises the president. What significant contribution to this research warrants 100% ownership over the results, with no allowance for any government and public, and scientific claim to this work? Is this outright ownership of science putting science in its rightful place, as President Obama promised in his inaugural address?
Clearly, one can get worked up about publisher claims, but this tendency to condemn an entire industry is misguided, as it turns out. This brings me to my second modest contribution to the debate over this bill. For what also needs to be made clear is that the scholarly publishing industry is itself divided over this open access thing. The proof lies with the 533 journals in the life sciences — from Advances in Urology to The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine — that currently offer to help authors deposit the published copy (not the final draft) in PubMed Central for the authors, where they are made freely available 12 months after publication. And then there are the 43 journals of the Nature Publishing Group, which will deposit the author’s final draft in PubMed Central for the author, as well as the 28 society and academic journals published by this group. Even the goliaths of corporate publishers — Springer, Wiley-Blackwell, Taylor and Francis, and Sage — offer options that allow authors to pay for immediate open access which includes depositing the work in PubMed Central in happy compliance with the NIH policy. (I have set out elsewhere the financial threat posed by the corporate publisher’s open access models to research as they increase their hold on scholarly publishing).
It is hard for the American Association of Publishers to claim, on behalf of publishers, that the NIH Public Access Policy allows “the NIH to unfairly compete directly with private sector journal publishers,” when so many publishers are helping authors comply with the policy. (Or at least, one cannot claim it unless one cynically suspects publishers are hedging their every bet by lobbying to defeat the policy, while making a show of supporting it to attract and appease authors.)
We need to bring to John Conyers’ attention, well as the Acts other sponsors, that even the special-interest basis for advancing the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act has been seriously undermined by the many publishers who are happy to work with the NIH Public Access Policy. And we need to commend these far-sighted scholarly publishers who find it in their interest to help authors take advantage of the NIH Public Access Policy, thereby restoring science to its open and public place in this democracy, to riff on President Obama’s inaugural address.
Respond: make a comment
Share: Email | Save as PDF | Print
| Bookmark & Share |
| 
More columns on Columns: Legal Publishing | from John Willinsky
|
the count:
8223 posts | 11403 comments
recent comments  
When you need to collaborate on a document displayed on your screen, it’s great to have a colleague from down the hall come into your office and look over your … »»Technology You should assess whether you can accept the financial risks associated with taking the matter, just as clients will assess whether they can (and will) pay your fee. Spend time at the beginning of the. […] »»Practice Today’s Tip is a simple reminder to view by “latest activity date”. The Parliament is back in session and those Slaw Tips readers for whom monitoring legislation is a regular … »»Research
-
Available online today are four new chapters of the publication Women in Canada: A Gender-based Statistical Report, which explores the socio-demographic and economic circumstances of Canadian women in general.
-
The bill amends the Constitution Act, 1867 by readjusting the number of members and the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons.
-
-
Blueseed plans to buy a ship and turn it into a floating incubator anchored in international waters off the coast of California.
-
Under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the flow of information out of Ottawa has slowed to a trickle.
-
-
"…the IPC has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a record is in the custody or control of a university in the context of an access request…"
-
-
John J.L. Hunter, Q.C. of Vancouver has been elected President for 2011-2012
-
Detailed results from 321 members.
These summaries of selected recent cases are provided each week to Slaw by Maritime Law Book.
More information.
-
Banks and Banking - Liability of banks to third parties - Negligence - General
The plaintiffs were the former shareholders of a company that failed. They sued the defendant bank alleging that it breached its contract with the company and the plaintiffs and breached a duty ...
-
Actions - Cause of action - General principles - New or extended cause of action - Opening of floodgates
The plaintiff and defendant worked at different branches of the same bank. The defendant’s common-law husband was the plaintiff’s ex-husband. Over a four year period, the defendant ...
-
Aliens - Definitions and general principles - Immigration consultants
The Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants (CSIC) had been designated as the sole regulatory body of immigration consultants in Canada from 2004 until June 2011. On June 30, 2011, Bill C-35 came into force, which significantly amended ...
-
Criminal Law - Sexual offences, public morals and disorderly conduct - Public morals - Obscenity - Possession of child pornography
The accused was convicted of making child pornography available and two counts of possession of child pornography (see [2010] Sask.R. Uned. 197). Subsequently, he was sentenced ...
-
Criminal Law - Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding pleas or evidence of witnesses, co-accused and accomplices
Rowe was convicted by a jury of five offences. He appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed ...
-
Narcotic Control - Offences - Possession - General
The accused wished to access marijuana for medicinal purposes but did not have an authorization to possess marijuana issued under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations. He was notified that a package of marihuana addressed to him had been ...
-
Narcotic Control - General - Legislation - Exemptions - Medicinal marijuana
McCrady, who had an application pending under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) to possess and grow marijuana, was convicted of possession of marijuana (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), s. 4(1)). Hearn pleaded guilty ...
-
Criminal Law - Sentence - Trafficking in hashish or marijuana (incl. possession for purposes of trafficking)
The accused pleaded guilty to one count of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. He was sentenced to 30 days’ imprisonment to be served intermittently and 11 months’ ...
-
Municipal Law - Powers of municipalities - Particular powers - Imposition and collection of taxes or fees
Catalyst Paper Corp. operated a paper mill in the District of North Cowichan. Catalyst objected to the tax rate that it paid compared to residential ratepayers. In 2009, the ...
This is a listing of a few upcoming events in Canada of interest to lawyers, law students, legal librarians, and others involved in the practice of law.
Clicking on any event in the list below will give you access to more information and to links allowing you to see the full entry and to add the event to your own calendar.
Click this link for a fuller version of the TalkLaw/ParLoi calendar of events and for instructions as to how to add events and calendars to your own calendar.
|
