The proposed Research Works Act in the US has been dropped in a move that is seen to signal a pivotal shift in scientific publishing. The legislation, had it been passed, would have stopped funding agencies stipulating that research funded with taxpayer dollars be made publicly available.
The implosion of the Research Works Act on February 27 was sudden and swift. Scientific publisher Elsevier - one of the legislation's biggest backers –announced that some of its journal authors, editors and reviewers were concerned that the measure was 'inconsistent' with the company's 'long-standing support' for expanding options for free and low-cost public access to scholarly literature. The sponsors of the act, California Republican Darrell Issa and New York Democrat Carolyn Maloney, dropped the bill after Elsevier's volte face. The lawmakers' motivations are now being questioned since it quickly followed Elsevier's withdrawal.
Elsevier and its senior executives made 31 contributions to members of the House in 2011, and Maloney received 12 of those worth a total of about $8500 (£5360), according to MapLight, a non-profit that tracks political donations. Issa received two such contributions adding up to $2000.
Before the Act died it managed to create a rift within the academic publishing industry, it is observed. The bill's chief supporter was the Association of American Publishers (AAP), which praised it for trying to prohibit federal agencies from unauthorised free public dissemination of journal articles.
Pressure on Elsevier and the Act's sponsors had intensified in recent months. More than 7,700 researchers signed a petition to boycott Elsevier, in part over its lobbying for the bill. In addition, more than 90 universities and patient advocacy groups recently wrote to members of the committee overseeing the bill to warn that its passage would 'impede public access to valuable research results from work funded by federal agencies'.
The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (IASTMP) recently released a statement signed by 47 publishers, including Elsevier, which said that they are committed to supporting any sustainable model that will get scientific research the biggest audience possible.
Opponents of the Research Works Act said that it would hamper the free movement of scientific information. As the bill would forbid federal agencies' promotion of free access to private sector research work without the publisher's prior consent, it would have effectively repealed the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) public access policy. This requires grantees to post their final research papers online within a year of publication. It would also have prevented other agencies from adopting similar practices.
While opponents of the bill, which also included scholarly societies and library groups, are declaring victory, critics of the act claim that industries disrupted by new technology - like film or music - won't succeed if they tirelessly cling to old business models.
Search for more public access policy related information
