Notes on the Federal Research Public Access Act

From Harvard Open Access Project
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Other resources)
(Action in support of FRPAA)
(24 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:
 
* It asks agencies to come up with their own policies within the general guidelines laid down in the bill.  It's not a one-size-fits-all solution and agencies are free to differ on the details.  They will have one year from the bill's passage to develop their policies (4.a).
 
* It asks agencies to come up with their own policies within the general guidelines laid down in the bill.  It's not a one-size-fits-all solution and agencies are free to differ on the details.  They will have one year from the bill's passage to develop their policies (4.a).
  
* The FRPAA guidelines require agencies to mandate "free online public access" for agency-funded research.  The guidelines do not define "free online public access" (4.b.4). Nor do they stipulate the timing of deposits, only the timing of OA.  For researchers employed and not merely fundned by the federal government, FRPAA allows no embargo at all (4.c.2).   
+
* The FRPAA guidelines require agencies to mandate "free online public access" for agency-funded research.  The guidelines do not define "free online public access" (4.b.4). Nor do they stipulate the timing of deposits, only the timing of OA.  For researchers employed and not merely funded by the federal government, FRPAA allows no embargo at all (4.c.2).   
 
   
 
   
 
* Like the NIH policy, FRPAA applies to the authors' peer-reviewed manuscripts (4.b.2), not to the published editions of their articles.  Like the NIH policy, it allows consenting publishers to replace the peer-reviewed manuscripts with the published editions (4.b.3). It would not apply to classified research, to royalty-producing work such as books, or to patentable discoveries "to the extent necessary to protect a...patent" (4.d.3).  
 
* Like the NIH policy, FRPAA applies to the authors' peer-reviewed manuscripts (4.b.2), not to the published editions of their articles.  Like the NIH policy, it allows consenting publishers to replace the peer-reviewed manuscripts with the published editions (4.b.3). It would not apply to classified research, to royalty-producing work such as books, or to patentable discoveries "to the extent necessary to protect a...patent" (4.d.3).  
Line 32: Line 32:
  
 
* '''In the 112th Congress'''
 
* '''In the 112th Congress'''
** Here's an [http://doyle.house.gov/FRPA112FINAL.pdf unofficial version of the House bill] released by Rep. Doyle's office. We'll link to the official versions as soon as they appear online.  
+
** '''[http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112s2096 FRPAA in the Senate]''' (S. 2096)
** FRPAA in the Senate (S. ///)
+
 
*** Introduced on February 9, 2012 by [http://cornyn.senate.gov/ John Cornyn] (R-TX), [http://hutchison.senate.gov/ Kay Bailey Hutchison] (R-TX), and [http://wyden.senate.gov/ Ron Wyden] (D-OR).
 
*** Introduced on February 9, 2012 by [http://cornyn.senate.gov/ John Cornyn] (R-TX), [http://hutchison.senate.gov/ Kay Bailey Hutchison] (R-TX), and [http://wyden.senate.gov/ Ron Wyden] (D-OR).
** FRPAA in the House (H.R. ///)
+
*** Referred to the [http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/ Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs]. See the [http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=congressmerge&lang=&commcode=sgov members and their contact information].
 +
*** Follow the Senate version of FRPAA in:
 +
**** [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-2096 GovTrack.us]
 +
**** [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s2096/actions OpenCongress]
 +
**** [https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s2096 PopVox]
 +
**** [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112s2096 THOMAS]
 +
** '''[http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr4004 FRPAA in the House]''' (H.R. 4004)
 
*** Introduced February 9, 2012 by [http://doyle.house.gov/ Mike Doyle] (D-PA), [http://yoder.house.gov/ Kevin Yoder] (R-KS), and [http://clay.house.gov/ William Lacy Clay] (D-MO).
 
*** Introduced February 9, 2012 by [http://doyle.house.gov/ Mike Doyle] (D-PA), [http://yoder.house.gov/ Kevin Yoder] (R-KS), and [http://clay.house.gov/ William Lacy Clay] (D-MO).
 +
*** Referred to the [http://oversight.house.gov/ House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform]. See the [http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/newcommittee.cgi?site=congressmerge&lang=&commcode=hgovrefrm members and their contact infoformation].
 +
*** Follow the House version of FRPAA in:
 +
**** [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-4004 GovTrack.us]
 +
**** [http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h4004/actions OpenCongress]
 +
**** [https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr4004 PopVox]
 +
**** [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr4004 THOMAS]
  
 
=== Previous versions of the bill ===  
 
=== Previous versions of the bill ===  
Line 45: Line 56:
 
** [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr5037 FRPAA in the House] (H.R. 5037)
 
** [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.111hr5037 FRPAA in the House] (H.R. 5037)
 
*** Introduced April 15, 2010 by Rick Boucher (D-VA), Mike Doyle (D-PA), Gregg Harper (R-MS), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), and Henry Waxman (D-CA).
 
*** Introduced April 15, 2010 by Rick Boucher (D-VA), Mike Doyle (D-PA), Gregg Harper (R-MS), Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), and Henry Waxman (D-CA).
** Major endorsements  
+
** Major endorsements of the 2009-10 version of the bill
 
*** [http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/frpaa/institutions.shtml 120 US college and university presidents and provosts]
 
*** [http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/frpaa/institutions.shtml 120 US college and university presidents and provosts]
 
*** [http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/supporters/scientists/nobelists_2009.shtml 41 Nobel laureates]
 
*** [http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/supporters/scientists/nobelists_2009.shtml 41 Nobel laureates]
Line 57: Line 68:
 
** [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.109s2695 FRPAA in the Senate] (S. 2695).
 
** [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.109s2695 FRPAA in the Senate] (S. 2695).
 
*** Introduced May 2, 2006 by John Cornyn (R-TX) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
 
*** Introduced May 2, 2006 by John Cornyn (R-TX) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
** Major endorsements
+
** Major endorsements of the 2006 version of the bill
 
*** [http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/frpaa/institutions_2006.shtml 132 US college and university presidents and provosts]
 
*** [http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/frpaa/institutions_2006.shtml 132 US college and university presidents and provosts]
 
*** [http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/issues/frpaa2006/frpaa2006_supporters/ Others]
 
*** [http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/issues/frpaa2006/frpaa2006_supporters/ Others]
<!-- == Publisher support == -->
+
 
 +
== Major endorsements ==
 +
 
 +
(Major endorsements of the ''current'' version of the bill, in chronological order.)
 +
 
 +
* The chancellors of six public higher education systems in Texas: U of Houston System, U of Texas System, Texas A&M System, Texas State U System, U of North Texas System, and Texas Tech System. See their joint [http://www.arl.org/sparc/bm~doc/tx-systems-cornyn-support-letter---feb-6-2012.pdf open letter] to Sen. John Cornyn, February 6, 2012.
 +
 
 +
* The [http://www.aau.edu/ Association of American Universities] (AAU) and the [https://www.aplu.org/ Association of Public and Land-grant Universities] (APLU). See their joint [http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=13034 open letter] to Sen. John Cornyn, February 13, 2012.
 +
 
 +
* Nine US library, publishing, and public-interest organizations:  [http://www.aallnet.org/ American Association of Law Libraries], [http://www.ala.org/ American Library Association], [http://www.arl.org/ Association of College and Research Libraries], [http://www.arl.org/ Association of Research Libraries], [http://creativecommons.org/ Creative Commons], [http://www.gwla.org/ Greater Western Library Alliance], [http://www.publicknowledge.org/ Public Knowledge], [http://www.plos.org/ Public Library of Science], and the [http://www.arl.org/sparc/ Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition] (SPARC). See their joint open letters [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/oawg-house-frpaa-14feb2012.pdf to the House] and [http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/oawg-senate-frpaa-14feb2012.pdf to the Senate], February 14, 2012.
  
 
== Action in support of FRPAA ==
 
== Action in support of FRPAA ==
  
* [http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/FRPAA2012.shtml Page on FRPAA] from the [http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/ Alliance for Taxpayer Access] (ATA).
+
* [http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/issues/frpaa/index.shtml Page on FRPAA] from the [http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/ Alliance for Taxpayer Access] (ATA).
** [http://www.congressweb.com/cweb2/index.cfm/siteid/sparc ATA legislative action center] with click-ready letters to legislators and a petition in support of FRPAA.
+
** The [http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/FRPAA2012.shtml ATA call to action page on FRPAA].
 +
** The [http://www.congressweb.com/cweb2/index.cfm/siteid/sparc ATA legislative action center] has modifiable, click-ready letters to legislators in support of FRPAA.
 +
** The ATA has created a [http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/action/action_frpaa/FRPAApetition.shtml petition] in support of FRPAA.
 +
 
 +
* See the [https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/strengthen-public-access-publicly-funded-research-and-support-federal-research-public-access-act/jF4mxRc4 petition in support of FRPAA] at [https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/ We The People], the White House petition site. Online since February 9, 2012. If the petition gathers 25k signatures, the Obama administration will review it and issue an official response.
 +
 
 +
* Any letter to Congress in support of FRPAA should be part of a letter opposing [[Notes on the Research Works Act|Research Works Act]] (RWA).
  
 
== Other resources ==
 
== Other resources ==

Revision as of 18:02, 18 February 2012

Contents

The bill itself

  • The Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) requires "free online public access" to publicly-funded research. It strengthens the OA mandate at the NIH by reducing the maximum embargo period from 12 months to six months, and extends the strengthened policy to all the major agencies of the federal government.
  • It doesn't merely reduce the maximum embargo to six months, it requires OA "as soon as practicable" after publication (Section 4.b.4), but no later than six months after publication.
  • It asks agencies to come up with their own policies within the general guidelines laid down in the bill. It's not a one-size-fits-all solution and agencies are free to differ on the details. They will have one year from the bill's passage to develop their policies (4.a).
  • The FRPAA guidelines require agencies to mandate "free online public access" for agency-funded research. The guidelines do not define "free online public access" (4.b.4). Nor do they stipulate the timing of deposits, only the timing of OA. For researchers employed and not merely funded by the federal government, FRPAA allows no embargo at all (4.c.2).
  • Like the NIH policy, FRPAA applies to the authors' peer-reviewed manuscripts (4.b.2), not to the published editions of their articles. Like the NIH policy, it allows consenting publishers to replace the peer-reviewed manuscripts with the published editions (4.b.3). It would not apply to classified research, to royalty-producing work such as books, or to patentable discoveries "to the extent necessary to protect a...patent" (4.d.3).
  • Unlike the NIH policy, FRPAA doesn't specify the OA repository in which authors must deposit their manuscripts, the way the NIH specifies PubMed Central. FRPAA leaves this decision up to the individual agencies. They could host their own repositories or make use of existing repositories, including the institutional repositories of their researchers. FRPAA only requires that the repositories meet certain conditions of OA, interoperability, and long-term preservation (4.b.6).
  • FRPAA and the NIH policy differ slightly in how they secure permission for the mandated OA. The NIH requires grantees to retain the non-exclusive right to authorize OA through PubMed Central. If a given publisher is not willing to allow OA on the NIH's terms, then grantees must look for another publisher. FRPAA requires agencies to "make effective use of any law or guidance relating to the creation and reservation of a Government license that provides for the reproduction, publication, release, or other uses of a final manuscript for Federal purposes" (4.c.3). The FRPAA approach gives agencies more flexibility. Agencies may use the battle-tested NIH method if they wish. They may use a federal-purpose license such as that codified in 2 CFR 215.36(a) (January 2005) if they wish. Or they may make use of "any [other] law or guidance" that would be "effective" in steering clear of infringement.
  • FRPAA will not amend copyright or patent law (4.e).
  • FRPAA will apply to all unclassified research funded in whole or part (4.b.1) by agencies whose budgets for extramural research are $100 million/year or more (4.a). This includes the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation.
  • FRPAA would mandate OA for more research literature than any other policy ever adopted or ever proposed.

Current version of the bill

Previous versions of the bill

Major endorsements

(Major endorsements of the current version of the bill, in chronological order.)

  • The chancellors of six public higher education systems in Texas: U of Houston System, U of Texas System, Texas A&M System, Texas State U System, U of North Texas System, and Texas Tech System. See their joint open letter to Sen. John Cornyn, February 6, 2012.

Action in support of FRPAA

  • See the petition in support of FRPAA at We The People, the White House petition site. Online since February 9, 2012. If the petition gathers 25k signatures, the Obama administration will review it and issue an official response.
  • Any letter to Congress in support of FRPAA should be part of a letter opposing Research Works Act (RWA).

Other resources

  • Press release on the House version of the bill, from Rep. Doyle's office, February 9, 2012.

Discussion and analysis

A dozen reminders

This is the third time that FRPAA has been introduced in Congress and subject to public debate. Past experience suggests that these are the 12 points that opponents are most likely to distort or fail to mention.

  1. FRPAA mandates deposit in OA repositories, not submission to OA journals. It focuses on green OA and ignores gold OA.
  2. FRPAA does not mandate that subscription-based journals convert to OA. It does not tell any kind of journals what their access policies or business models ought to be. It regulates grantees, not publishers.
  3. FRPAA only applies to articles that have already been published in peer-reviewed journals.
    • This point has three important consequences. First, it means that FRPAA doesn't apply to unpublished articles or research notes. Therefore, it doesn't force premature disclosure from researchers who make patentable discoveries. The policy kicks in only after researchers voluntarily decide to publish.
    • Second, the policy does not bypass peer review. On the contrary, it demands peer review and merely widens access to peer-reviewed research.
    • Third, it's about archiving copies, not meddling with the original publications. Hence, the possibility of government censorship doesn't arise. The original publications will be in libraries and independent web sites around the world, wherever the publisher's market reach and preservation back-ups have managed to place them. If a future administration removed certain copies from its archive, for political purposes, that would not affect the originals at all. This point is only worth raising because of some peculiar history. Hard as it is to believe, in the wake of the 2006 version of FRPAA a PR consultant advised the Association of American Publishers (AAP), Elsevier, and Wiley to argue that "Public access equals government censorship", and a short-lived organization created by the Association of American Publishers, called PRISM (Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine), actually tried it. Details here and here. If selective non-archiving of copies of unaltered originals is a kind of censorship, then those lobbying against an OA archiving mandate like FRPAA want systematic non-archiving and mass censorship.
  4. Under FRPAA, the government will not tell journals what to publish. The government will not conduct peer review or tell journals how to conduct peer review. It will not become a publisher where it wasn't already a publisher. It will not "nationalize science" (whatever that means).
    • Government funding agencies will continue to decide what research they will fund. Because they control significant funds, that's a significant power. But FRPAA didn't create it and defeating FRPAA won't repeal it.
  5. FRPAA mandates deposit in an OA repository, but it does not limit deposits to a single repository.
    • This is true in two senses. First, FRPAA lets federal funding agencies host their own repositories or point grantees to suitable external repositories. Second, even after agencies make their choice, and authors deposit their work in the designated repository, authors are not limited to that repository and may deposit their work in any other repositories as well. The first point means that the designated repositories won't always be controlled by the government. The second point means that, even when they are, authors may deposit in independent repositories without restraint. The policy opens new access doors without closing any old ones.
  6. FRPAA does not mandate OA to the published edition of an article. It applies only to the final version of the author's peer-reviewed manuscript --basically, the version approved by peer review but not yet copy-edited. This is a concession to publishers to preserve library incentives to subscribe.
  7. FRPAA gives publishers the option to replace the author's manuscript in the designated repository with the final published version. This is a solution for publishers who worry about the circulation of multiple versions.
  8. FRPAA does not mandate OA immediately upon publication, but permits embargoes up to six months. This is a concession to publishers and a compromise with the public interest in immediate public access.
    • For the first six months after publication, publishers will have exclusive distribution rights to both the published edition and (at their choice) the final version of the author's peer-reviewed manuscript. After six months, publishers will still have exclusive distribution rights to the published edition, and the only time limit on that exclusivity is the duration of copyright itself (the life of the author plus 70 years). Of course, publishers may voluntarily waive some of these exclusive rights by permitting authors to self-archive their postprints, and today more than 60% of surveyed publishers do just that.
    • The NIH policy allows an embargo of up to 12 months. But the NIH is the outlier here, not FRPAA. Even if the NIH's own field of medicine, the NIH is the only OA-mandating medical research funder in the world allowing embargoes longer than six months. Every other one without exception limits embargoes to six months: the Arthritis Research Campaign (UK), British Heart Foundation, Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Dunhill Medical Trust (UK), European Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Executive Health Department, Department of Health (UK), Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec (Canada), Fund to Promote Scientific Research (Austria), Genome Canada, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Joint Information Systems Committee (UK), Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (Canada), National Cancer Institute of Canada, National Institute for Health Research (UK), Vetenskapsrådet (Swedish Research Council, Sweden), and the Wellcome Trust (UK).
  9. FRPAA does not provide funds for publication fees at fee-based OA journals.
    • There's a healthy ongoing debate about whether funding agencies should offer to pay these fees. Are they an unaffordable diversion of funds from research or a needed investment in unembargoed OA and peer-reviewed OA journals? (There are publishers and OA proponents on each side of this question.) The debate should continue, but don't let it confuse the issues. Objections to the practice are not objections to FRPAA.
  10. FRPAA does not depend on publisher consent or cooperation. It will either rely on rights retention by authors (like the NIH policy) or on a special license already codified in federal law authorizing federal agencies to disseminate the results of the research they fund.
    • The federal-purpose license and the NIH rights-retention method both give the government a non-exclusive right to disseminate OA copies of the articles. Both methods prevent publishers from acquiring the full bundle of exclusive rights they might have desired and might otherwise have acquired. Both methods entail joint ownership of these articles, with authors or agencies holding some rights and publishers holding other rights. The publishing lobby routinely misrepresents this aspect of the policy, framing the issue as if publishers were "the copyright holders" to these articles, without qualification, and as if the government were expropriating their private property or blocking them from enforcing rights they possess, as opposed to preventing them from acquiring rights they wish to possess. More detail here.
  11. FRPAA does not amend copyright law. It does not seize or invalidate copyrights, prevent government-funded researchers from holding copyrights on their work, prevent them from transferring rights to publishers, or prevent publishers from enforcing the rights they acquire from authors.
  12. Finally, FRPAA makes no assumptions about how many members of the lay public are interested in reading peer-reviewed scientific research articles. It doesn't matter that some members of the lay public won't care to read the articles that will become OA, just as it doesn't matter that some drivers won't care to drive on a given stretch of publicly-funded road. Those who don't care to have access to cutting-edge research will still benefit because doctors, manufacturers, policy-makers, non-profits, and researchers have access. FRPAA will benefit everyone who cares to read this research, and benefit everyone else indirectly by benefiting researchers directly. The purpose is not to widen access for lay readers alone (a straw-man argument of the publishing lobby), or for professionals alone, but to widen access for everyone who can make use of publicly-funded research.


This section is adapted from a couple of Peter Suber's previous articles. This version will be revised to respond to frequently heard misunderstandings.

Personal tools