Some evidence for the demand for research literature by nonprofessionals A r…

“A recent tweet from @openscience…

…asked me to support my claim in a 2012 interview that “more than 40 percent of the visitors to PubMed Centralcome from domains.”

I’m glad to. But the answer is too long for Twitter, or at least I’d like to say more about it than I can fit in a tweet. So I’m giving it here….”

The NIH Public Access Policy (April 2012)

“NO HARM TO PUBLISHERS IS EVIDENT: • Publishers retain up to a 12?month embargo on NIH?funded papers before they are made available to the public without charge under fair use principles. • The Public Access requirement took effect in 2008. While the U.S. economy has suffered a downturn during the time period 2007 to 2011, scientific publishing has grown: – The number of journals dedicated to publishing biological sciences/agriculture articles and medicine/health articles increased 15% and 19%, respectively.5 – The average subscription prices of biology journals and health sciences journals increased 26% and 23%, respectively.6 – Publishers forecast increases to the rate of growth of the medical journal market, from 4.5% in 2011 to 6.3% in 2014.7 …

KEY FACTS ABOUT PMC: • Over 2.4 million articles are now in PMC. In addition to the NIH?funded papers deposited into PMC, publishers voluntarily deposit more than 100,000 papers per year. • Every weekday, 700,000 users access the database, retrieving over 1.5 million articles. • Based on internet addresses, an estimated 25% of users are from universities, 17% are from companies, and 40% from the general public …”

The Foxfire of Fair Use: The Google Books Litigation and the Future of Copyright Law – infojustice

Abstract:  This article considers the dynamic evolution of copyright exceptions and limitations in the United States in light of new technological developments. There has been significant legal debate in the courts and in the United States Congress in respect of the scope of the defence of fair use. The copyright litigation over Google Books has been a landmark development in the modern history of copyright law. The victory by Google Inc. over The Authors Guild in the decade long copyright dispute is an important milestone on copyright law. The ruling of Leval J emphasizes the defence of fair use in the United States plays a critical role in promoting transformative creativity, freedom of speech, and innovation. The Supreme Court of the United States was decisive in its rejection of The Authors Guild’s efforts to challenge the decision of Leval J. There has been significant debate in the United States Copyright Office and United States Congress over the development of ‘the Next Great Copyright Act’. Hearings have taken place within the United States Congressional system about the history, nature, and future of the defence of fair use under United States copyright law. There remains much debate about the internationalisation of the defence of fair use, and the need for the trading partners of the United States to enjoy similar flexibilities in respect of copyright exceptions. There has been concern about the impact of mega-regional trade agreements – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership – upon copyright exceptions – such as the defence of fair use.

Federal innovation guidance fails on open data, open dialogue, says GAO

“Governmentwide guidance for implementing open innovation strategies is particularly inefficient when addressing agency challenges in open data collaboration and fostering ideation and open dialogues, according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office.”


Primary Document (GAO Report) is accessible here:

Supporting the Changing Research Practices of Agriculture Scholars | Ithaka S+R

“The issue of cost also factors into interviewees’ approach to making their peer-reviewed publications available via open access. When asked about whether their publications are available via open access, many interviewees focused on the cost of gold open-access models.[15] These interviewees highlighted that while they are generally supportive of open access, the cost of making their articles open access through the journals they publish in is prohibitively high, especially since they are expected to publish multiple articles per project and per year. A typical response by an interviewee: “I am all for the open access. That’s good but I have mixed feelings because you have to pay to get your paper published… That’s a lot of money and my lab can publish around twenty papers a year. I tell my students to please find a free journal. If it is open access where is my money?” Some had built those costs into their grants or had qualified for funds made available for that purpose by their institution, but others noted that money is already such a concern that they didn’t perceive it as prudent to allot costs towards open access or that institutional funds were not available. As the same interviewee highlighted, “Yes you can use grants to get it published, but you have to make the cuts somewhere else to make it work. …When I first came the department would pay for publication but now the department cannot afford it.”


Interviewees rarely reported deliberately seeking out green open access peer-reviewed publications, which reflects that other considerations such as reputation and scope are generally more important. Interviewees also reported low participation in their institutional repositories as a mechanism for making their publications open access, with some being unaware of such programs or perceiving the participation as too onerous. Some recognize that they may be required in the future to deposit their publications in an appropriately designated repository as a condition of receiving government funding, but the majority had not yet experienced such a requirement. Those who have reported that they deposited did so because non-agriculture-specific agencies, such as the National Institute of Health, required it. Others conflated open access and institutional repositories with academic social networking sites (discussed in further detail below)….”

The Library of Alexandra

“Public Resource has been conducting an intensive audit of the scholarly literature. We have focused on works of the U.S. government….Our audit has determined that 1,264,429 journal articles authored by federal employees or officers are potentially void of copyright….To further examine the subject, I have made a copy of a database known as scihub, which has 63+ million journal articles….The purpose of this copy is to create a transformational use, an extraction of all components of scihub that are in the public domain….Of the 1,264,429 government journal articles I have metadata for, I am now able to access 1,141,505 files (90.2%) for potential release….In addition, 2,031,359 of the articles in my possession are dated 1923 or earlier. These 2 categories represent 4.92% of scihub….Public Resource will make extracts of the Library of Alexandra available shortly, will present the issues to publishers and governments….”

SCOAP3 and APS: What You Need to Know

“The APS Board of Directors voted on April 23 to enter into an agreement with the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) to participate in the Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics (SCOAP3). Here’s what it means for you as a member, author, and researcher.”

Progress RPT Project

“What is this about? We are currently examining the review, promotion, and tenure (RPT) process in the United States and Canada. At this point, very little is known about what RPT documents contain, but we believe that changes in these documents can lead to a greater opening of research. …Can I help? Yes! Below is a list of the institutions in our sample. If you don’t see an X, it means we still need a departmental or faculty guideline from that institution/discipline!….”

Follow-Up on NASA Providing Open Access to All Its Funded Research | Exposing PseudoAstronomy

“As a NASA grant awardee, you have the option to submit your accepted manuscript(s) to NASA’s PubSpace repository. PubSpace is available from a collaboration between the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NASA to allow wider access to the results of federally-funded research. For the grant listed below, you may deposit any peer-reviewed manuscripts describing work supported by NASA awards that were published or accepted for publication through the NIH Manuscript Submission (NIHMS) system. At this time, this is not a Term and Condition of the grant listed below; however, you may voluntarily submit any manuscripts that were a result of the funded research from this grant.

Grant Award Information: Grant Number: ????? Proposal: ????? Technical Officer: ????? Technical Officer Email: ?????

In order to complete this process, you will need to have an ORCID ID number. Your ORCID ID number is required to align your award information to you and to allow you to log into the NIHMS system. Please follow this link to create an ORCID ID or to log in with your current ORCID ID number.”