If you are interested in science, you have probably had trouble finding free peer reviewed articles. A while back, I noticed a bill that would help alleviate this problem. The Federal Research Public Access Act (H.R. 5037), which was introduced in 2006, and again in 2009, but unfortunately, it never became a law.
It proposed to make federally funded research accessible to institutions and the public. As it stand now, subscription barriers limit U.S. taxpayer access to research paid for with public funds. This study examined the economic returns of the public access policies and found that it could lead to a return on the public’s investment between 4 and 24 times the costs. Two thirds of this return would accrue within the United States, with the remainder spilling over to other countries. In the U.S., the study suggests that the benefits of public access might total between 3 and 16 times the cost of the public’s investment.
SOPA has increased the public's interest in these issues. So, I thought it would be a good time to mention a new bill, which opposes public access, and threatens to overturn the current NIH policy, which congress mandated in 2007. It is the Research Work Act H.R.801 and it is again sitting in the Judiciary Committee. If there is "any value-added contribution, including peer review or editing" from a private publisher, this bill prohibits federal agencies to allow public access to these article, even if the research was paid for by the public.
“We strongly urge that you oppose H.R. 801. Rather than overturning the NIH policy that Congress mandated in 2007, Congress should broaden the mandate to other agencies, by passing the Federal Research Public Access Act first introduced in 2006. Doing so would increase transparency of government and of the research that it funds, and provide the widest availability of research results to the citizens who funded it.”
http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/HR801-letter
Darrell Issa's SOPA Stance Doesn't Carry Over to Public Access to Research
It proposed to make federally funded research accessible to institutions and the public. As it stand now, subscription barriers limit U.S. taxpayer access to research paid for with public funds. This study examined the economic returns of the public access policies and found that it could lead to a return on the public’s investment between 4 and 24 times the costs. Two thirds of this return would accrue within the United States, with the remainder spilling over to other countries. In the U.S., the study suggests that the benefits of public access might total between 3 and 16 times the cost of the public’s investment.
SOPA has increased the public's interest in these issues. So, I thought it would be a good time to mention a new bill, which opposes public access, and threatens to overturn the current NIH policy, which congress mandated in 2007. It is the Research Work Act H.R.801 and it is again sitting in the Judiciary Committee. If there is "any value-added contribution, including peer review or editing" from a private publisher, this bill prohibits federal agencies to allow public access to these article, even if the research was paid for by the public.
“We strongly urge that you oppose H.R. 801. Rather than overturning the NIH policy that Congress mandated in 2007, Congress should broaden the mandate to other agencies, by passing the Federal Research Public Access Act first introduced in 2006. Doing so would increase transparency of government and of the research that it funds, and provide the widest availability of research results to the citizens who funded it.”
http://osc.hul.harvard.edu/HR801-letter
Darrell Issa's SOPA Stance Doesn't Carry Over to Public Access to Research
Last edited: