START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
1,063,198 people care about Education

Scientists Fight For Open Access For Research

Scientists Fight For Open Access For Research
  • 1 of 2

Researchers around the world have expressed concern and alarm about HR 3699, the Research Works Act, which endangers the public’s access to federally-funded research — to research funded by taxpayers’ own contributions. A number of scientists and mathematicians have signed an online pledge at the Cost of Knowledge saying that they will not publish or do any editorial work for Elsevier, the world’s largest publisher of scientific journals, which has declared its support for HR 3699.

A January 21st blog post by Timothy Gowers, a University of Cambridge mathematician who has won the Fields Medal, math’s equivalent of the Nobel Prize, voiced the views of many about Elsevier. “Why do we allow ourselves to be messed about to this extraordinary extent, when one would have thought that nothing would be easier than to do without them?” Gowers wrote.  The online pledge surfaced after a few days and has been signed by over 2,400 biologists, social scientists and mathematicians.

H.R. 3699, The Research Works Act

The reasons for the boycott are far from academic.

The National Institutes of Health made all federally-funded research publications openly accessible in 2008. But HR 3699, which is sponsored by by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Committee member Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), proposes to limit access, based not on who has funded the research (the public or private sector), but by defining research as “private-sector work” based on the “intent” of an author, i.e., the researchers. The American Association of Publishers – self-described “private-sector research publishers” — support HR 3699, on the grounds of seeking “regulatory interference” about the research they publish.

Suppliers and “Middlemen” in Peer-Reviewed Publishing

Currently, scientists, mathematicians and others strive to publish in certain highly regarded peer-reviewed journals. They of course wish to make the results of their research known to the public. Getting an article published in a peer-reviewed journal involves a number of stages after submitting an article: The manuscript is sent to reviewers who are other researchers and who, very often, hold academic positions at universities. The journal’s editorial board makes the decision to publish the article or not. The reviewers are not paid by the journal.

However, to read the research in a journal, you have to have a subscription to it, or to belong to an institution that has one. Elsevier publishes over 2,000 scientific journals including two that are very prestigious, The Cell and The Lancet. Scientists must be familiar with and cite research published in such journals; for researchers who are junior faculty at universities or in post-doctoral positions, getting research published in these journals can make their careers.

  • 1 of 2

Read more: , , , , , , , , , ,

Photo by PugnoM

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it


+ add your own
6:07PM PDT on Jul 5, 2012

Like Michael R., after reading the comments, I feel like a candle has been lit. Lets hope the tide has turned. The results of publicly funded research must be open to the public, and not only in the "corrected", probaganda-ised form issued by the IPCC and other New World Order bodies.

1:10PM PST on Feb 7, 2012

This administration has returned to grounding policy based on science rather than political myths and other foundations; thus those who prefer myths want to keep the scientific results from becoming known to be used for such policies--really scary stuff.

11:18AM PST on Feb 3, 2012

Thanks for the information: some very good points were made here. I'm happy to have received this article in the same e-mail as the one on pseudoscience: how can we assess issues intelligently if accurate scientific information is held hostage by high fees and, now, potential federal legislation? Those promoting pseudoscience are more than happy to monopolize the mass media.

3:12PM PST on Feb 2, 2012

Car thief-turned-Congressman Darrell Issa is, and always has been, for sale. That in itself should tell you the reason for limiting access through HR 3699. How arrogant, anyway, to tell the populace to pay for a book to be written, but deny them the right to read the book.

11:59AM PST on Feb 2, 2012

Another article in defense of the "reality based community" today. On a form that all to often caters to the mythologies of the left. It's as if someone lit a candle and the world isn't quite so dark.

11:48AM PST on Feb 2, 2012

More bullying by the GOP.

9:49AM PST on Feb 2, 2012

We've had thousands of years of open access and it has worked for the good of humankind. Now we get some power freaks who think it is necessary to put a price tag on everything and keep information hostage of whoever wants to make the more money possible for its access. I say run them out of Congress: they haven't understood that they've been elected to serve us the nation, not the corporations which keep them at the trough

8:56AM PST on Feb 2, 2012

Instead of trying to pass a piece of road apple like HR3699 and restrict or censor, we should build something positive. The Open Access movement combined with a simple royalty system allowing people to pay how much they think it's worth to support the original authors would be far more acceptable than HR3699, ACTA, OPEN, SOPA, or PIPA; we should also abolish DMCA.

8:19AM PST on Feb 2, 2012

As long as their experimentation is not on animals OR the stupid myth of Global warming, Then I could care less other than using our tax dollars to do so. If they feel their research is that important , then let them pool their resources as there are many experimentations that are a waste of tax payers dollars, including the fact that we have no say so ultimately on what is utilized experimentally.

7:38AM PST on Feb 2, 2012

They think someone will run with the information and get paid for what they is a money thing. They think someone will add or subtract from what is published, make it their own and make some money off of it...GREED is the final deduction. IT ALWAYS COMES DOWN TO GREED!

add your comment

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

I am thrilled that Tab got helped and has a great life now. Another reason I am vegetarian! I have…

I was in Yellowstone a few years ago----and I did see people too close to Bison. Our vehicle had to…

meet our writers

Kristina Chew Kristina Chew teaches and writes about ancient Greek and Latin and is Online Advocacy and Marketing... more
ads keep care2 free

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

site feedback


Problem on this page? Briefly let us know what isn't working for you and we'll try to make it right!