- Harvard Office for Scholarly CommunicationDirector, 2013 - present
- Harvard Open Access ProjectDirector, 2011 - present
- Director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication
- Director of the Harvard Open Access Project
- Faculty Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society
- Senior Researcher at the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC)
- Open Access Project Director at Public Knowledge
- Research Professor of Philosophy at Earlham College.
From SPARC (emphases mine): "The Senate Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) today passed S. 779, the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research (FASTR) Act, unanimously by voice vote and moved it to the full Senate for consideration. This marks the first time the Senate has acted on a government-wide policy ensuring public access to the results of publicly funded research, and is an important step towards codifying the progress made by the 2013 White House OSTP Directive...."
For more detail on the bill, see my longer post from yesterday.
#oa #openaccess #fastr #movefastr
If you work with an OA advocacy organization, and the OAD list doesn't already include it, please add it. If the OAD entry is incomplete, please add important missing details.
The Open Access Directory is a wiki and depends on the OA community to keep it current and comprehensive. To limit spam, editing is limited to registered users, but registration is free and easy.
Uvania Naidoo is a summer intern for the Harvard Open Access Project at the .
FASTR will go to markup tomorrow in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).
Here's a recap of my recent call-to-action post on FASTR, with some new details and background.
FASTR is the strongest bill ever introduced in Congress requiring open access to federally-funded research.
We already have the 2008 NIH policy, but it only covers one agency. We already have the 2013 Obama directive requiring about two dozen federal agencies to adopt OA mandates, but the next President could rescind it.
FASTR would subsume and extend the NIH policy. FASTR would solidify the Obama directive by grounding these agency policies in legislation. Moreover, FASTR would strengthen the NIH policy and Obama directive by requiring reuse rights or open licensing. It has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.
FASTR has been introduced in two sessions of Congress (February 2013 and March 2015), and its predecessor, FRPAA (Federal Research Public Access Act), was introduced in three (May 2006, April 2010, February 2012). Neither FASTR nor FRPAA has gotten to the stage of markup and a committee vote. That's why tomorrow's markup is so big.
For the reasons why FASTR is stronger than the Obama directive, see my 2013 article comparing the two.
FASTR is stronger than the NIH policy and the Obama directive on reuse rights and open licensing. Here's why, in an excerpt from the article above:
"In three separate places, FASTR calls for agency policies to permit 'productive reuse' and 'computational analysis by state-of-the-art technologies'. I like the phrase "computational analysis by state-of-the-art technologies" better than 'text-mining'. FASTR makes agency policies evolve to permit new kinds of reuse, not just the kind represented by 'text-mining' circa 2013....The White House directive takes steps in the same direction but doesn't go as far. It encourages 'public-private collaboration to...maximize the potential for...creative reuse to enhance value to all stakeholders'.... 'Creative reuse' is essentially equivalent to FASTR's 'productive reuse'....The snag is that the directive doesn't actually require policies to maximize that potential. Instead it 'encourages' it, and it encourages it through 'public-private collaboration' rather than directly through open-licensing terms....FASTR requires agencies to study 'whether [deposited OA] research papers should include a royalty-free copyright license that is available to the public and that permits the reuse of those research papers, on the condition that attribution is given to the author or authors of the research and any others designated by the copyright owner'....Agencies that don't require CC-BY licenses must essentially explain why, and they must do so every year....That's why I've been telling colleagues that FASTR tacitly recommends CC-BY...."
While the Obama directive was always weaker than FASTR on reuse rights, the Obama White House has approved agency policies that don't even live up to its weaker standard. See my August 2014 criticism of the Department of Energy for not living up to the White House guidelines. The same could be said about every subsequent agency policy elicited by the White House directive. Of course, the real problem lies in fact that the White House abandoned the reuse provision of its own guidelines.
As originally written, FASTR was also stronger than the NIH policy and the Obama directive on embargoes. The NIH policy permits embargoes up to 12 months, and the Obama directive makes 12 months the default. FASTR originally capped embargoes at 6 months for all covered agencies. However, just this week as the bill was approaching markup, Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Tom Carper (D-DE), the HSGAC chairman and ranking member, introduced an amendment allowing embargoes up to 12 months. Tomorrow's markup will deal with the bill as amended.
There's no doubt that this amendment is bad news. It weakens the bill and compromises the public interest.
On the other hand, there's still no doubt that the bill is stronger than the NIH policy and Obama directive, if only for its strong, unambiguous position on reuse rights.
Moreover, if you're willing to measure small differences, FASTR continues to be better on embargoes. Even as amended, FASTR would encourage embargoes shorter than 12 months, allow petitions to shorten embargoes to come from researchers, agency officials, and members of the public, and let the petitions be decided by the agencies. It's a process that favors the public over publishers.
Yesterday SPARC issued a good memo on the nature of the amendment and political circumstances that led to it.
Publishers lobbied fiercely for this amendment. For my most recent short attempt to answer their arguments, see this January 2014 post.
(Another result of publisher lobbying: John McCain withdrew as a co-sponsor of FASTR.)
Finally, let me point out one more benefit of FASTR over the Obama directive. The Obama directive encouraged agencies to coordinate with one another but allowed their policies to differ. The resulting policies do differ, sometimes significantly. I can say from inside a university gearing up to comply with all these policies that their differences threatened to create huge implementation headaches. FASTR will bring these policies much closer to uniformity. If there are any US universities that don't care about OA (and I doubt there are), they should still push hard for FASTR to simplify compliance.
Bonus: FASTR will also nip Elsevier's new, long embargoes in the bud, at least for articles arising from federally-funded research.
If FASTR passes, agencies that wrote policies at the weak end of the spectrum allowed by the Obama directive will have to strengthen them. When the Obama White House issued its directive in February 2013, FASTR had already been introduced in both houses of Congress and I urged agencies to keep an eye on it: "What happens if agencies develop policies to satisfy the directive, and then Congress adopts FASTR?...FASTR would add the requirements on which it is stronger than the directive....If agencies were weak on reuse and open licensing, they'd have to strengthen their libre provisions....[T]he prospect of future revision to conform with FASTR, especially after careful coordination and consultation, is a reason for agencies to set policy in light of FASTR in the first place."
* For more details on FASTR itself, see my reference page.
* Also see my reference page on FRPAA, the predecessor of FASTR.
* For steps you can take to support FASTR, see the action pages from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC).
Please urge your Senators to support FASTR, and spread the word.
#oa #openaccess #fastr #movefastr
Things are moving in DC, and we anticipate that FASTR (Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act) will come before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs later this month.
FASTR is the strongest bill ever introduced in Congress requiring open access to federally-funded research.
Yes, we already have the NIH policy. But it only covers one agency. And yes, we already have the February 2013 Obama directive requiring about two dozen federal agencies to adopt OA mandates. But the next President could rescind that directive. FASTR would subsume and extend the NIH policy. FASTR would solidify the Obama directive by grounding these agency policies in legislation. Moreover, FASTR would strengthen the NIH policy and Obama directive by requiring reuse rights or open licensing. It has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate.
* For the reasons why FASTR is stronger than the Obama directive, see my 2013 article comparing the two.
* For more details on FASTR itself, see my reference page on the bill.
* For steps you can take to support the bill, see the FASTR action pages from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC).
#oa #openaccess #fastr
I know that OMB didn't consider us falling under the OSTP directive, so I'm guessing we wouldn't fall under FASTR.
As to whether or not the NEH would voluntarily comply as you suggest, I really can't say. As you know, while we did attend some of the OSTP meetings on public access, we ultimately decided not to participate along with the other agencies.
The Open Access Directory (OAD) maintains a list of journals that converted from toll access to open access (TA to OA).
If you know any journals that aren't yet listed, but ought to be, could you please add them? If you're close enough to any listed journals to improve their annotations, could you please improve them? Several colleagues have helped on this front over the past month, and the list is much better than it was before. But I know there are still many gaps to fill.
If you could give the same kind of help to the companion list of journals that moved in the other direction, from OA to TA, that would be much appreciated.
The OAD is a wiki open to public edits. To prevent spam, editing is limited to registered users, but registration is free and easy.
Why do I ask, and why now?
On April 16, I posted a call for proposals to write a comprehensive literature review on methods for converting non-OA journals to OA.
The OAD list of converted journals will be one of the key resources for the researcher who writes the review. To be as helpful as possible, the list should be as complete as possible. But if completeness is too much to ask, at least the list should include OA journals from all major categories: for-profit and non-profit, society and non-society, fee-based and no-fee, north and south, sciences and humanities.
Thanks! And please spread the word to others who might be able to help.
#oa #openaccess #oad
Libraries cheer passage of strong open access legislation in U.S. Senate...
Today, public access to federally-funded research took one momentous move forward with the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Go
News Releases - Home - United States Senator John Cornyn, Texas
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) issued the following statement after the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Commit
SPARC Applauds Senate Committee Action on Public Access Legislation | SPARC
SPARC Applauds Senate Committee Action on Public Access Legislation. Share: Twitter icon. Facebook icon. Google icon. LinkedIn icon. e-mail
The Research Council of Lithuania is planning to adopt an Open Access Po...
Prof. Ruta Petrauskaite presented plans to adopt the Open Access policy/mandate of the Research Council of Lithuania by February 2016.
Quick Hack Will Now Alert People When The Supreme Court Quietly Changes ...
A few weeks ago, we covered a NY Times article about how the Supreme Court was quietly changing rulings well after they had been released --
Milestone for MIT Faculty Open Access Policy: 3 million downloads | MIT ...
A new milestone was reached at the end of April 2015, when downloads of articles deposited in relation to the MIT Faculty Open Access Policy
The Most Shameful Part of Bobby Jindal’s Presidential Campaign
When Pastor Louis Husser spoke to the Louisiana House Education Committee in 2008 in support of a law that allows science teachers to includ
A Response to Jeffrey Beall's Critique of Open Access
I recently became a member of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and today was dismayed to see Jeffrey Beall's article
About us | News | Max Planck in-house | Area-wide transition to open acc...
The Max Planck Digital Library has put forward a study on the transformation of the subscription-driven system for scientific publications t
PLOS Science Wednesday: I'm Dr. Andy Beck, open access is the future of ...
Hi Reddit! My name is Dr. Andy Beck, and I am an assistant professor in the Department of Pathology at Harvard Medical School, and...
T.H. Tsien, 105, Dies; Scholar of Chinese Books Rescued 30,000 of Them
Professor Tsien risked his life in 1941 to smuggle tens of thousands of rare volumes to safety at the Library of Congress amid the Japanese
New Harvard research debunks the NRA's favorite talking points
Surveys drawing on scores of experts reveal a clear consensus against the gun lobby.
MIT data storage researcher wins Alan Turing award, $1 million from Goog...
The Turing award is considered the Nobel in the field of computer science
NOT-OD-15-067: Request for Information (RFI) soliciting input into the d...
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts: Request for Information (RFI) soliciting input into the del