The Research Works Act

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/01/elsevier_evil.php

As if this winter wasn't already host to enough shitty bills...

While a lot of the other crap that's sprouted from Congress has had, at the core, a somewhat respectable intention, the Research Works Act is bullshit from start to finish.

This bill prohibits the free online availability of private sector research. Which almost sounds reasonable, except that works qualify as private sector if a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review or editing."

In other words, if a company played any role in reviewing or editing of an article, as is almost always the case, then journals need not make this article available online free of charge. Those who wished for access to the findings would have to pay for this access, regardless of the fact that public funding is already paying for the research. Such an act would hinder the original purpose behind the creation of the internet: for scientists to have a simpler method to share their findings.

This bill in no way benefits science, scientists or the public; it serves only to fatten the publishers of scientific journals.

My god, how many acts are they planning to enforce this year?

Fucking hell, these shits are pissing me off!
We don't need another shitty acts!

Citation needed.

The original purpose of the internet is to provide the government and private groups with a hard-to-disrupt method of networking. It was not for civilians.

From wikipedia:



This bill is a logical extension of that. Private research remains private. If you want in, pay for it.

JAMA (Journal of American Medicine) and just about every peer-reviewed journal asks you to pay if you want full access to their articles (at sometimes very high prices).

https://subs.ama-assn.org/ama/exec/subscribe

This law just reinforces that. The studies you currently see freely on the internet? Most of them are just abstracts, not the full body of the study. For the majority of scientific studies, you will have to pay to get a hold of. Of course, some studies are freely available online, but that's because the authors distributed it freely. This law prevents studies not distributed freely to be not distributed freely (gasp).





The bill covers private research, not public. From the article:



The article is being stupid. Right after stressing "private sector", this part pops up:



So, private sector research is now taxpayer funded?


and, look at this:



What the law does is prevent dissemination if the private researchers doesn't want it to be disseminated. If he wants to, then fine, no problem. If he doesn't want to, this law protects him. It doesn't say anything about tax paid/government research.

So many bills.. I don't even know what to say anymore...

Well, yes. A lot of research is taxpayer funded. I'm not to sure about the rules but I think Elsevier and similiar companies get a year or so where they get to profit on the work and then it get's released to the public. And what this bill changes is that they'll never have to give out publicly funded research for free to the public.

A lot of PRIVATE research is taxpayer funded? A LOT of them?

Given that "private" and "public" are opposites, I'd like to see proof of a lot of private research being publicly funded.

In other words, citation please, or it didn't happen.

And even if there were, here's a quote from the actual bill:



I interpret that as "if it is federally funded, even in part then it isn't included"

Since the 1950's the U.S Federal Government has spent 2% of GDP on Research and Development. From 1953 to 2004 the amount rose to 4.7. In 2004 R&D spending reached 199 billion dollars, with the Federal Government spending 93 billion of that.

The U.S Government either directly or indirectly pays for research ranging from research on why men dislike condoms to space exploration and many, many more.

citation.

In other words, the Feds subsidize or simply "outsource" research to private companies. At that point, the lines between public and private are blurred.

Admittedly, it was not intended for civilians, but it was developed to facilitate communication between researchers in the department of defense.

http://www.enotes.com/history/q-and-a/why-was-internet-created-288816

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_was_the_Internet_developed



Yes, most articles are published in journals which charge a fee to view those articles. However, the publisher does not hold the right to do this with publicly funded research indefinitely. According to the NIH, all articles been publicly funded are to be made freely available after a 12 month period.



The definition of "private sector" as per this bill is extremely broad. Saying that companies have a right to charge for viewing their works is fair, but the Research Works Act is going far beyond that. It considers all works which have received any private funding, even in the form of reviewing or peer-editing, to be immune to the NIH mandate.



I interpreted that as the opposite: if it is privately funded, even in part, then no government agency may force it to be made available for free at any point. As I mentioned in my OP:



That said, I will admit that the article could and should have specified more clearly the disconnect between the article's definition of "private sector" and general perception of the term.

The GOP's really trying to work around our liberties, aren't they? :/

It is already hard enough as it is to find good research material and references for work and college. What's the point of research if you don't share it anyway? Research isn't and should not be an industry, it is the human method of developping our universal comprehension and knowledge.

... Why are they "fixing" what isn't broken?

Well I have no problem with corporations engaging in research. They have much to offer to many fields. However, to me corporations are just a means to an end- activities which benefit a company but hinder science in the long run should be criminalized.

"Long run" is the crucial phrase; I don't think publishers should be obligated to make all content freely available immediately, for then their business model would be unsustainable. They provide an important service and driving them out of business would do the opposite of advancing science.

I agree that every businesses has to keep a few secret aces up their sleeves, but they can't keep all research material to themselves indefinately.

Of course they can.Perhaps it may be leaked illegally along the line or proven to be safe to disclose but it's their right to keep it to themselves indefinitely. Saying they can't keep all research material to themselves indefinitely is like asking the USFG to not recognize patents or invading your privacy for randomized specific information such as the frequency of masturbation within the week with specific timestamps and expecting an answer.

This isn't actually about the corporations keeping their inventions to themselves.

The status quo is that a journal that has the right to publish an article is obligated to make it freely available after one year if said article was funded by the NIH.

The RWA would make it so that publishers can keep charging indefinitely for any study that was even in part funded privately.

I realize that, just trying to put to conflict darkiway's statement.

because they're trying to one up the internet,by trying to "improve" it.lol the internet is for freedom,not limitations people
.

If the publisher has to pay indefinately for the publishing then no doubt this will in turn cost more to the people who actually want to look at it.

Bills... I need to pay them soon enough.

Well there are so many bills I agree guys. Alot stating the restriction of freedom in the web and restrictions on public information.

If they do not like the opinion of journalists how they wrote the story then they can sue them and finished. Just because a few donkey humpers decided to restrict something for their own reasons isn't persuasive enough to pass a bill. It is still our country and not theirs so if they want something to change then we have to vote for it... point.

Amen to that.