Survival of Scholarly University Presses - reports on annual meeting of AAUP

Two articles appeared today discussing the annual meeting of the American Association of University Presses. The fate of University presses is closely tied to faculty seeking tenure. Fewer books are being accepted for publication, yet for many disciplines a published book is a requirement for tenure. Shrinking library budgets also are affecting the sales for university presses. Both articles present information on how presses are looking to find new methods in order to survive. Some presses are looking at alternatives including moving to e-format only, while other presses are being closed, and others are looking at open access. Read complete story. in Inside Higher Ed.

For more details, see The Chronicle of Higher Ed story, "Scholarly Presses Discuss What it Takes to Survive" on the annual meeting.

Student Groups issue statement for Open Access

An article in today's Inside Higher Ed ("Student Coalition Forms to Support Open Access") shares information on student groups who have joined together to issue a "Statement on Open Access." The group includes:

American Medical Student Association (June 10, 2009)
Student PIRGs (June 10, 2009)
Students for Free Culture (June 10, 2009)
Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (June 10, 2009)
California Institute of Technology Graduate Student Council (June 10, 2009)
Trinity University Association of Student Representatives (June 10, 2009)

Their website, Right to Research has a copy of the statement and a place to sign on in support. My only quibble is that as per usual, they refer to "universities" only, not colleges. It is such a simple thing to be inclusive of all academic institutions and be mindful that a significant number of articles are generated by college faculty. At the same time, it is to be hoped that students will become more involved in the Open Access Movement.

10 University-Press Directors Back Free Access to Scholarly Articles

From an article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed: "In a move that puts them at odds with the official stance of the Association of American University Presses, a group of university-press directors yesterday issued a position statement that endorses “the free access to scientific, technical, and medical journal articles no later than 12 months after publication.” Read complete article.

Gustavus Library Faculty Sign Open Access Pledge

Gustavus Adolpus College Library Faculty Adopted the Following Open Access Pledge on May 14th. You can see the complete pledge below, and links on their web page to other institutions with statements about OA.

Open Access Pledge

The Gustavus library faculty believes that open access to scholarship is critical for scholarly communication and for the future of libraries. For that reason we pledge to make our own research freely available whenever possible by seeking publishers that have either adopted open access policies,publish contents online without restriction, and/or allow authors to self-archive their publications on the web. We pledge to link to and/or self-archive our publications to make them freely accessible.

Librarians may submit their work to a publication that does not follow open access principles and will not allow self archiving only if it is clearly the best or only option for publication; however, librarians will actively seek out publishers that allow them to make their research available freely online and, when necessary, will negotiate with publishers to improve publication agreements.

Adopted by the library faculty on May 14, 2009

http://gustavus.edu/academics/library/Pubs/OApledge.html

NIH Mandate, the First U.S. Public Access Policy Made Permanent

Although the NIH Public Access Mandate still faces a legislative challenge by the Conyers Bill, the first U.S. Public Access Policy was made permanent on March 12 when President Obama signed the 2009 Consolidated Appropriates Act. The full act reads:

"The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require in the current fiscal year and thereafter that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law."

An April 7, 2009 article in Nature, by Meredith Watson, provides a view of the NIH mandate after one year. An exerpt from her article is an example of how the mandate has increased deposits:

"In March 2009, 6,425 such original articles were approved by their authors for processing; a year earlier, the number was 1,852."

Her article also provides commentary about the Conyers bill, along with other opponents of the NIH mandate.

Public Access to NIH Funded Research Under Attack, again

A new bill has been introduced to reverse the current NIH Public Access Policy as well as prohibit similar policies by other federal agencies. We're asking the community to please take time to call or write your US Representative and ask him or her to oppose HR 801, The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act. We have worked too hard for too long and it is critical that this bill not gain any momentum by gaining additional co-sponsors. We need your action no later than February 28, 2009. Please act now to express your support for public access to taxpayer-funded research and ask that he or she oppose H.R.801.

Here is a list of Minnesota U.S Representatives and a link to their websites with their contact information:

• Bachmann, Michele, Minnesota, 6th
• Ellison, Keith, Minnesota, 5th
• Kline, John, Minnesota, 2nd
• McCollum, Betty, Minnesota, 4th
• Oberstar, James L., Minnesota, 8th
• Paulsen, Erik, Minnesota, 3rd
• Peterson, Collin C., Minnesota, 7th
• Walz, Timothy J., Minnesota, 1st

More details will be found at SPARC

Letter from SPARC with a sample letter to send to your representative. Phone calls are also very effective.

Target: All members of the House of Representatives
Subject: Ask your Representative to oppose the H.R. 801 – The Fair Copyright in Research Works Act

Last week, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (Rep. John Conyers, D-MI) re-introduced a bill that would reverse the NIH Public Access Policy and make it impossible for other federal agencies to put similar policies into place. The legislation is H.R. 801: the “Fair Copyright in Research Works Act” (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.801:).

All supporters of public access – researchers, libraries, campus administrators, patient advocates, publishers, and others – are asked to please contact your Representative no later than February 28, 2009 to express your support for public access to taxpayer-funded research and ask that he or she oppose H.R.801. Draft letter text is included below. As always, it’s important to let us know what action you’re able to take, via http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/log.html.

H.R. 801 is designed to amend current copyright law and create a new category of copyrighted works (Section 201, Title 17). In effect, it would:

1. Prohibit all U.S. federal agencies from conditioning funding agreements to require that works resulting from federal support be made publicly available if those works are either: a) funded in part by sources other than a U.S. agency, or b) the result of "meaningful added value" to the work from an entity that is not party to the agreement.

2. Prohibit U.S. agencies from obtaining a license to publicly distribute, perform, or display such work by, for example, placing it on the Internet.

3. Stifle access to a broad range of federally funded works, overturning the crucially important NIH Public Access Policy and preventing other agencies from implementing similar policies.

4. Because it is so broadly framed, the proposed bill would require an overhaul of the well-established procurement rules in effect for all federal agencies, and could disrupt day-to-day procurement practices across the federal government.

5. Repeal the longstanding "federal purpose" doctrine, under which all federal agencies that fund the creation of a copyrighted work reserve the "royalty-free, nonexclusive right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work" for any federal purpose. This will severely limit the ability of U.S. federal agencies to use works that they have funded to support and fulfill agency missions and to communicate with and educate the public.

Because of the NIH Public Access Policy, millions of Americans now have access to vital health care information through the PubMed Central database. Under the current policy, nearly 3,000 new biomedical manuscripts are deposited for public accessibility each month. H.R.801 would prohibit the deposit of these manuscripts, seriously impeding the ability of researchers, physicians, health care professionals, and families to access and use this critical health-related information in a timely manner.

All supporters of public access -- researchers, libraries, campus administrators, patient advocates, publishers, and others -- are asked to contact their Representatives to let them know you support public access to federally funded research and oppose H.R. 801. Again, the proposed legislation would effectively reverse the NIH Public Access Policy, as well as make it impossible for other federal agencies to put similar policies into place.

Thank you for your support and continued persistence in supporting this policy. You know the difference constituent voices can make on Capitol Hill.

If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to contact Heather or myself anytime.

All best,

Jennifer

--------------------------
Jennifer McLennan
Director of Communications
SPARC
(The Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition)
http://www.arl.org/sparc
(202) 296-2296 ext 121
jennifer@arl.org

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

-------------------------

Draft letter text:

Dear Representative;

On behalf of [your organization], I strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 801, “the Fair Copyright in Research Works Act,” introduced to the House Judiciary Committee on February 3, 2009. This bill would amend the U.S. Copyright Code, prohibiting federal agencies from requiring as a condition of funding agreements public access to the products of the research they fund. This will significantly inhibit our ability to advance scientific discovery and to stimulate innovation in all scientific disciplines.

Most critically, H.R. 810 would reverse the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy, prohibit American taxpayers from accessing the results of the crucial biomedical research funded by their taxpayer dollars, and stifle critical advancements in life-saving research and scientific discovery.

Because of the NIH Public Access Policy, millions of Americans now have access to vital health care information from the NIH’s PubMed Central database. Under the current policy, nearly 3,000 new biomedical manuscripts are deposited for public accessibility each month. H.R.801 would prohibit the deposit of these manuscripts, seriously impeding the ability of researchers, physicians, health care professionals, and families to access and use this critical health-related information in a timely manner.

H.R. 801 affects not only the results of biomedical research produced by the NIH, but also scientific research coming from all other federal agencies. Access to critical information on energy, the environment, climate change, and hundreds of other areas that directly impact the lives and well being of the public would be unfairly limited by this proposed legislation.

[Why you support taxpayer access and the NIH policy].

The NIH and other agencies must be allowed to ensure timely, public access to the results of research funded with taxpayer dollars. Please oppose H.R.801.

Sincerely,
(name)

[END LETTER TEXT]

Legislation to change copyright - your access to publicly funded research is threatened

Summary of legislation below, after reading, please contact Keith Ellison, MN Representative on the House Judiciary Committee to protest this proposed legislation. His phone: 202-225-4886, email from his website
When writing, please be sure to refer to his role on the House Judiciary Committee

Proposed Legislation-
From SPARC:

On September 11, 2008, the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (Rep. John Conyers, D-MI) introduced a bill that would effectively reverse the NIH Public Access Policy, as well as make it impossible for other federal agencies to put similar policies into place. The legislation is HR6845: “Fair Copyright in Research Works Act” (http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR6845.pdf).

Please contact your Representative and Senators no later than September 24, 2008 to express your support for public access to taxpayer-funded research and ask that he or she OPPOSE HR6845. Especially important are members of the House Judiciary Committee (http://judiciary.house.gov/about/members.html) and Senate Judiciary Committee (http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm). (Draft text and contact details are included below).

HR6845 is designed to do the following:

1. Amend current copyright law (Title 17).

2. Prohibit all U.S. federal agencies from conditioning funding agreements to require that works resulting from federal support be made publicly available if those works meet either of two conditions:

a. They are funded in part by sources other than a U.S. agency, or

b. The results from "meaningful added value" to the work from an entity that is not party to the agreement.

3. Prohibit U.S. federal agencies being able to obtain a license to publicly distribute, perform, or display such work by -- for example -- putting it on the Internet.

4. Makes broad policy by stifling public access to a wide range of federally funded works, and effectively overturns the crucially important current NIH Public Access Policy.

5. Because it is so broadly framed, the proposed bill would require an overhaul of well-established procurement rules in effect for all federal agencies, and could disrupt day-to-day procurement practices across the federal government, including in critical areas such as research to support national defense and homeland security.

6. In particular, the bill would repeal the longstanding "federal purpose" doctrine, under which all federal agencies that fund the creation of a copyrighted work must reserve a "royalty-free, nonexclusive right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work" for any federal purpose. This will severely limit the ability of U.S. federal agencies to use works that they have funded to support and fulfill agency missions and to communicate with and educate the public.

7. The bill is a blunt instrument that uses extremely broad language to override existing procurement law, and as such has serious implications for the entire U.S. federal government far beyond articles resulting from research funding.

8. Because of the NIH Public Access Policy, millions of Americans now have access to vital health care information from the NIH’s PubMed Central database. Under the current policy, nearly 4,000 new crucial biomedical articles were deposited in the last month alone. This proposed bill would prohibit the deposit of these articles, and as a result, researchers, physicians, health care professionals, families and individuals will find it much harder to get access to this critical health-related information.

Constituents across the country are asked to contact Congress and let them know you support public access to federally funded research and OPPOSE HR6845. Again, the proposed resolution would effectively reverse the NIH Public Access Policy, as well as make it impossible for other federal agencies to put similar policies into place.