Here is an interesting issue that casts an unflattering light on lobbying congress.
In the past there has been growing unhappiness that, when scientific research funded by taxpayers and charities is published in journals, publishers hold the exclusive copyright and charge high prices for access to these articles. Typically $35 for a single article, which may be only one page long. They also charge libraries very high prices for subscriptions (as much as £1,000,000 per year by a single publisher and for a single institution). As most of the work required to produce and assess the articles is not paid by the publishers, they make a tidy profit on the backs of taxpayers and donors to charity.
Now a few years ago those funding research started imposing a requirement that any reports of work funded by them should be available for free access after 6 months. This would mean that publishers could still profit but that work was accessible at low cost after a delay.
Publishers have responded in two ways. Firstly they charge an additional costs to authors for this, demanding an additional £5,000 per article. Secondly, they have been lobbying the US congress to introduce a bill (the Research Works Act) that would actually ban the government from requiring this open access after 6 months for research that is publicly funded. It is very difficult to understand how anyone of sane mind outside the publishing industry could support such a bill. Fortunately the reaction of academics and scientists was so strong (they threatened a boycott) that Elsevier withdrew their support from the bill and, guess what, the bill was dropped. This reveals the ugly effect of lobbying on politicians. But the good guys won, thanks to the collective action of many.
In the past there has been growing unhappiness that, when scientific research funded by taxpayers and charities is published in journals, publishers hold the exclusive copyright and charge high prices for access to these articles. Typically $35 for a single article, which may be only one page long. They also charge libraries very high prices for subscriptions (as much as £1,000,000 per year by a single publisher and for a single institution). As most of the work required to produce and assess the articles is not paid by the publishers, they make a tidy profit on the backs of taxpayers and donors to charity.
Now a few years ago those funding research started imposing a requirement that any reports of work funded by them should be available for free access after 6 months. This would mean that publishers could still profit but that work was accessible at low cost after a delay.
Publishers have responded in two ways. Firstly they charge an additional costs to authors for this, demanding an additional £5,000 per article. Secondly, they have been lobbying the US congress to introduce a bill (the Research Works Act) that would actually ban the government from requiring this open access after 6 months for research that is publicly funded. It is very difficult to understand how anyone of sane mind outside the publishing industry could support such a bill. Fortunately the reaction of academics and scientists was so strong (they threatened a boycott) that Elsevier withdrew their support from the bill and, guess what, the bill was dropped. This reveals the ugly effect of lobbying on politicians. But the good guys won, thanks to the collective action of many.
No comments:
Post a Comment