“We the undersigned American scientists, publishers, funders, patient advocates, librarians and members of the public endorse a national policy that would ensure that Americans are no longer denied access to the results of research their tax dollars paid for. We have read recent media reports that the executive branch is considering a zero embargo taxpayer access policy, and we are writing to express our strong support for such a move….”
“The American Sociological Association has signed a letter that profoundly betrays the public interest and goes against the values that many of us in the scholarly community embrace.
The letter to President Trump, signed by dozes of academic societies, voices opposition to a rumored federal policy change that would require federally funded research be made freely available upon publication, rather than according to the currently mandated 12-month embargo — which ASA similarly, bitterly, opposed in 2012. ASA has not said who made the decision to sign this letter. All I know is that, as a member of the Committee on Publications, I wasn’t consulted or notified. I don’t know what the ASA rules are for issuing such statements in our name, but this one is disgraceful.
The argument is that ASA would not be able to make money selling research generated by federal funding if it were required to be distributed for free. And because ASA would suffer, science and the public interest would suffer. Like when Trump says getting Ukraine to help him win re-election is by definition in the American interest — what helps ASA is what’s good for science….
So I posted a letter expressing opposition to the ASA letter. If you are a sociologist, I hope you will consider sharing and signing it. We got 100 signatures on the first day, but it will probably take more for ASA to care. To share the letter, you can use this link: https://forms.gle/ecvYk3hUmEh2jrETA. …”
“In light of a rumored new White House Open Access Policy, the American Sociological Association (ASA), and other scholarly societies, signed a letter to President Trump in support of continued embargoes for federally-funded research. The letter is here: https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/science_orgs_opposing_proposed_embargo_change_121819.pdf).
We are sociologists who join with libraries and other advocates in the research community in support of federal policy to make the results of taxpayer-funded research immediately available to the public for free. We endorse a policy that would eliminate the current 12-month waiting period for open access to the outputs of taxpayer-funded scientific research. Ensuring full open access to publicly-funded research contributes to the public good by improving scientific productivity and equalizing access — including international access — to valuable knowledge that the public has already paid for. The U.S. should join the many other countries that already have strong open access policies.
We oppose the decision by ASA to sign this letter, which goes against our values as members of the research community, and urge the association to rescind its endorsement, to join the growing consensus in favor of open access to to scholarship, including our own….”
“Publicly-funded research should be free to read, reuse and free for authors to publish (“Diamond” or “Platinum Open Access”). High quality Platinum Open Access journals already exist in most disciplines, but often languish without the support of researchers who feel pressured to publish in ‘prestigious’ traditional journals. The academic community creates nearly all of the value that determines journal ‘prestige’, however, and as such a widespread and simultaneous statement of exclusive support for the Platinum Open Access model would bolster the reputation of these journals, decrease the incentive to publish in traditional journals, and allow the community to transition the value we provide to more efficient and cost-effective journals with minimal risk to individual researchers.
By signing this campaign, you will pledge to exclusively support fee-free Open Access journals. Your pledge will only go into effect if a critical mass of peers in your field sign the same pledge (choose your own threshold when you pledge, according to your circumstances)….”
“A statement released by UWA claims the changes will help “to guarantee modern university publishing into the future”, foreshadowing “a mix of print, greater digitisation and open access publishing.”…
The notion that a respected publishing house can be replaced by open access publishing is disproved by examining other Australian university presses, such as the now-closed University of Adelaide Press, founded in 2009 with a mission to be an open access publisher….
Sydney University Press, which was relaunched in 2003 after closing in 1987, has employed a “hybrid approach” to open access. It is now returning to a more standard university publishing model….
Open access has an important role to play in academic publishing, but it is laughable to claim UWA Publishing’s cultural impact can simply be replaced through open access….
“As scientists and scholars, we create the intellectual content that appears in APA [American Psychological Association] Journals. We conduct the research, write the papers and review the work at no cost to your journals. We also edit your journals for minimal income. This makes the academic publication system incredibly profitable for publishers.
It deeply concerns us that APA uses these profits to pay staff to threaten us to remove these products of our free labor from our academic websites, where other academics can read and build on our work.
We engage in practices like voluntary reviewing for APA because we feel a commitment to producing a public good that others can use to promote scientific progress. By using these profits to restrict us from sharing our own work, you have privatized a public good and made our relationship transactional. Of course, it is entirely within your rights to do so.
If you wish to make this relationship transactional, we demand that you use the profits from our work to pay us for reviewing. If we learn that you have pressured any of the signees to remove their own APA publications from their academic website, then all signees will demand that you pay us $300 per review (unless otherwise agreed upon in writing).
In short, you have a simple choice: You continue to accept our free labor and allow us to share the products of our labor on our academic websites OR we move to a transactional relationship and you pay us for our reviewing and we use that money to pay for open access rights for our papers (or any other purpose we deem relevant).”
“Like many academics, William Cunningham, professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, shares his own articles — published and soon-to-be — on his website. And like most academics, he does so in the interest of science, not personal profit.
So Cunningham and hundreds of his colleagues were recently irked by a takedown notice he received from the American Psychological Association, telling him that the articles he had published through the organization and then posted on his website were in violation of copyright law. The notice triggered a chain of responses — including a warning from his website platform, WordPress, that multiple such violations put the future of his entire website at risk. And because the APA had previously issued similar takedown notices, the threat of losing his website seemed real to Cunningham.
In response, psychologists started a petition to the APA, saying that if it didn’t stop policing authors’ personal websites for the sharing of science, then it needed to pay peer reviewers $300 for each article review….”
“America’s libraries are committed to promoting literacy and a love of reading with diverse collections, programs and services for all ages. Libraries are invested in making sure millions of people can discover and explore new and favorite authors through digital and print collections. Downloadable content and eBooks are often many reader’s front door to accessing material at their local library.
But now one publisher has decided to limit readers’ access to new eBook titles through their libraries.
Beginning November 1, 2019, Macmillan Publishers allows libraries—no matter the size of their city or town—to purchase only one copy of each new eBook title for the first eight weeks after a book’s release….”
From Google’s English: “Objective: This “manifesto” is intended, initially, to a public of scientists. Some recent moves, such as #MarchForScience or #NoFakeScience [1, 2], that have made a lot of noise in the media and social networks, have had the merit of highlighting how much we need not only trust, but also the cooperation of the general public in order to face the global crises that mark our time. However, if there is a scientific consensus that is lacking today, it is precisely the one that can affirm, without bad faith, that “knowledge is the heritage of humanity”. For that, it would first be necessary for this heritage to be entirely and freely accessible by everyone.
If you agree with this principle and are ready to support it, you are welcome to add your signature at the bottom of this manifesto. At this very moment when climate strike movements around the world insist that we do not have time to wait for the recalcitrant, we must act now, it is not the case for the open science: the moment to act to give citizens the confidence that we, scientists, need on their part, the moment finally to open science, it is also now! Let’s talk about this also in the media …”
“Preprints are a fast and cost-effective way to make findings openly available (‘Green Open Access’). Some publishers discourage preprints by delaying their sharing (’embargoes’) or forbidding their updating after peer-review (‘post-print’ or ‘author accepted manuscript’). If a critical mass of researchers were to unanimously declare their intention to share pre- and post-prints, however, publishers would be compelled to endorse these practices or lose the value donated to them by the research community.
Every time you publish, deposit the final peer-reviewed preprint (i.e., ‘post-print’) in an indexed repository without embargo
Every time you review, only review for journals that allow post-prints to be shared without embargo (i.e., ‘Green’ journals on Sherpa/Romeo)…”