Good news!!!
Laypersons and independent researchers often cannot afford to access reports published in ‘peer reviewed’ journals–which is one reason that fraudulent reports have tainted the literature without true, independent peer review.

Since the research was funded by taxpayers, it is not too much to require scientists who receive public funds to disclose their findings on the internet which is publicly accessible to all.

Last year, the NIH paid lip service when it informed congress it was instituting a “plan” that would encourage voluntary public disclosure 11 after publication in journal.  NIH’s “encouragement” resulted in just 4% of scientists complying. This prompted Congress to get serious. Legislation has been introduced,  The Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006, co-sponsored by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), will require public access within six months–and would apply to research funded by all 11 federal agencies that provide at least $100 million annually to non-government researchers.

News about the legislation was greeted with enthusiasm by Heather Joseph, of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition: "It’s good to see an expanded interest by Congress in securing taxpayer access to federally funded research," she said, predicting that scientists, too, would benefit. "Expanded access to research really will help accelerate innovation and discovery."

And by Peter Suber, director of the open access project at Public Knowledge, an information policy advocacy group in the District, echoed that view: "It’s a very, very good bill," he said. "I think it’s wonderful news."

But Patricia S. Schroeder, president and chief executive of the Association of American Publishers, promised a fight. "It is frustrating that we can’t seem to get across to people how expensive it is to do the peer review, edit these articles and put them into a form everyone can understand,"

Her argument rings hollow in the wake of the revelations that these journals’ peer-review system is nothing more than a “laundering operation” used by industry’s marketing departments to promote products.  See: Science’s Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap_by Dr. Lawrence Altman, NYT at: https://ahrp.org/cms/content/view/156/94/

AHRP urges everyone to let your Senators know you care about free public access to research–ask them to support the Federal Rearch Public Access Act of 2006–short title–research access[S.2695.IS]

Contact: Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@ahrp.org

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201506_pf.html
WASHINGTON POST
Bill Seeks Access to Tax-Funded Research
Grant Recipients Would Be Required to Post Findings on Internet
By Rick Weiss
Wednesday, May 3, 2006; A21

A smoldering debate over whether taxpayers should have free access to the results of federally financed research intensified yesterday with the introduction of Senate legislation that would mandate that the information be posted on the Internet.

The legislation, which would demand that most recipients of federal grants make their findings available free on the Web within six months after they are published in a peer-reviewed journal, represents a rebuke to scientific publishers, who have asserted that free access to their contents would undercut their paid subscription base.

It also signifies that some members of Congress have lost patience with a voluntary plan initiated a year ago by the National Institutes of Health. That plan encouraged but did not require recipients of NIH grants to make their findings public within a year after publication. In the first six months of that program, only about 4 percent of eligible researchers bothered to do so.

Subscriptions to journals can cost hundreds of dollars or more a year. And although most publishers sell individual articles for $15 to $45 apiece, those charges can add up for someone researching, for example, a recently diagnosed disease.

The Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006, co-sponsored by Sens. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), goes considerably further than the NIH program. In addition to requiring public access within six months, not 12, it would apply to research funded by all 11 federal agencies that provide at least $100 million in outside funding per year — a category that includes the departments of Agriculture, Commerce and Homeland Security as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, NASA and the National Science Foundation.

Heather Joseph, executive director at the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition, a D.C.-based organization of research and academic libraries, lauded the legislation.

"It’s good to see an expanded interest by Congress in securing taxpayer access to federally funded research," she said, predicting that scientists, too, would benefit. "Expanded access to research really will help accelerate innovation and discovery."

Peter Suber, director of the open access project at Public Knowledge, an information policy advocacy group in the District, echoed that view: "It’s a very, very good bill," he said. "I think it’s wonderful news."

But Patricia S. Schroeder, president and chief executive of the Association of American Publishers, promised a fight. "It is frustrating that we can’t seem to get across to people how expensive it is to do the peer review, edit these articles and put them into a form everyone can understand," Schroeder said.

In the age of the Internet, everyone wants everything free, Schroeder said. "But we can’t figure out what exactly the business model would be. And if you just got the raw research, you wouldn’t have a clue" how to use it, she said.

Martin Frank, executive director of the American Physiological Society in Bethesda, which like other small scientific organizations counts on journal profits to support its educational programs, also complained about the bill.

"It’s unnecessary legislation," Frank said, adding that many publishers are gradually moving on their own to make at least some of their contents freely available.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.