[Fwd: [Fwd: Fw: [ARL-DIRECTORS] Update: Legislation on Public Access to Federally Funded Research]]

[Olivier Charbonneau]

FYI... sorry for cross postings... some developments on the US front.

-------- Original Message --------

Organization:	Concordia University
To:

Although it may not be of interest to all, I'm taking a chance and forwarding this message because directly or indirectly, it impacts on the whole question of access and can be used in arguments on the need for institutional repositories.  My apologies if this is a duplication.

Bill

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Fw: [ARL-DIRECTORS] Update: Legislation on Public Access to Federally Funded Research
Date:	Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:46:37 -0500
	[hidden email]
Organization:	University of Manitoba
To:	[hidden email]

For your information with apologies for duplication!

--------------------------------
Carolynne Presser
Director of Libraries
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba
R3T 2N2
tel: [phone]
fax: [phone]

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 1:45 PM

Subject: [ARL-DIRECTORS] Update: Legislation on Public Access to Federally Funded Research

August 31, 2006

TO: Directors of ARL Libraries 

FROM: Prue Adler, Karla Hahn, ARL and Heather Joseph, SPARC

RE: Legislation on Public Access to Federally Funded Research

Summary:  Within the last few weeks, there is strong and growing support for S. 2695, the "Federal Research Public Access Act" (FRPAA).   Following the letter signed by 25 provosts at CIC institutions, the Greater Western Library Alliance (GWLA) released a letter from 23 provosts signaling strong support for the legislation.   Additional support from other higher education institutions is forthcoming. 

However, as what is perhaps a predictable consequence of this positive attention, opponents of FRPAA are now contacting provosts, presidents, and other leaders of higher education institutions to ask that they sign a letter opposing FRPAA.  In the event that members of your campus leadership are contacted, this alert briefly reviews the key provisions of the legislation and responds to specific concerns expressed by opponents of the legislation.  As the letter in opposition to the legislation is circulating broadly, you may want to contact your campus leadership and express support for S. 2695.

Background: Key Provisions of the "Federal Research Public Access Act"

The bill would require every federal agency with an annual extramural research budget of $100 million or more to implement a public access policy consistent with and advancing the federal purpose of the respective agency.  Each agency must:

• Require each researcher – funded totally or partially by the agency – to submit an electronic copy of the final manuscript that has been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

• Ensure that the manuscript is preserved in a stable digital repository maintained by that agency or in another suitable repository that permits free public access, interoperability, and long-term preservation.

• Require that free, online access to each taxpayer-funded manuscript be available as soon as possible, and no later than six months after the article has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Background: Higher Education Community Support and Concerns of Opponents: In an Open Letter supporting FRPAA, leaders of the higher education community noted,  “The broad dissemination of the results of scholarly inquiry and discourse is essential for higher education to fulfill its long-standing commitment to the advancement and conveyance of knowledge. Indeed, it is mission critical.”

In contrast, opposition to the FRPAA is based on the assumption that broadening public access to federally funded research will financially injure publishers. The following is a summary of some of the concerns included in correspondence of the opponents, along with responses to those concerns.

Concern: The proposed public access policy will "potentially undermine the peer review process."

Response: Opponents of the bill argue that journals will become economically unsustainable through loss of subscription revenue if the proposed federal public access policy (with a six-month access embargo) becomes a reality. They further believe that, as a direct consequence of this anticipated loss of subscription income, the process of peer review will be harmed.  This wholesale journal cancellation scenario is not accurate for several reasons that likely are obvious to the research library community but may be less apparent to campus leaders.

First, libraries do not view article availability in repositories as an acceptable substitute to journal subscriptions.  Second, the majority of libraries have no system in place to determine what articles are available in online repositories and how that maps with journal holdings.  Finally, a recent survey of libraries conducted by the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) concludes that six-month embargoes do not present significant motivation for libraries to cancel journals.  Indeed, for 82% of libraries surveyed, an embargo period would need to be three months or less for it to even become a factor in considering subscription cancellation. (http://www.alpsp.org/publications/pub12.htm)

The survey also shows that the library community unequivocally views open digital repositories (such as would be employed under S. 2695) as a supplement to the work of journals, not as a replacement for them. Journal readers will continue to seek access through their personal or library subscription to the full journal and its value-added content.

Finally, the concern is raised that the legislation will undermine the peer review process.  Provisions in FRPAA maintain peer review in its current role.  The bill language calls for works to be deposited only after they have been accepted for journal publication, after peer review has occurred.

Concern:  The proposed public access policy will "threaten the integrity of the scientific record." Opponents believe that posting "the unedited author manuscript by federal agencies" is problematic.

Response: Many publishers already engage in posting the final, accepted author's manuscript. For example, the American Society for Biochemistry and Microbiology, publisher of the Journal of Biological Chemistry, has posted the final, accepted author's manuscript for many years. See:  http://www.jbc.org/pips/pips.0.shtml

Concern: The proposed public access policy "is not a smart use of federal funds."

Response: As the NIH has found, the cost to maintain PubMedCentral at full capacity (with all 65,000 NIH-funded manuscripts loaded into the system) would be approximately $3.5 million per year.  In the context of NIH's annual $28 billion budget, this is an investment of just 1/100th of 1 percent of NIH's overall budget.  Enhanced dissemination of research results is not a drain on federal resources.  It is part of research itself -- an economical and practical means of leveraging the substantial public investment in science.

Next Steps:  You may want to contact your campus leadership to see if they have received a request to sign on to the letter in opposition to the Federal Research Public Access Act.  There is also an opportunity for provosts to signal support for the legislation if they did not participate in the CIC or GWLA letters.  Provosts can sign the SPARC Statement of Support for the Federal Research Public Access Act via http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/frpaa/highered.html .

ARL and SPARC will continue to provide additional materials on FRPAA. In the interim, additional information is available at:

http://www.arl.org/info/frn/other/access/#act

and http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/frpaa/index.html  and http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/frpaa/institutions.html.)

PSA/HJ:8/31/06

Prudence S. Adler

Associate Executive Director

Association of Research Libraries

21 Dupont Circle, N.W., Suite 800

Washington, D.C.  20036

[phone] x104 (phone)

[phone]      (fax)

[hidden email]