by on

What We're Reading

In case SOPA, the Stop Online Piracy Act, hasn’t given you enough heartburn, here’s another development on the legislative horizon to be concerned about–H.R. 3699, the Research Works Act. The Association of American Publishers has provided a summary of what they hope the bill will accomplish, which is a frightening read for those of us committed to the principles of Open Access. It appears that H.R. 3699 would seriously threaten public access to federally funded research and deal a critical blow to the Open Access movement, which has been buoyed by exactly the kind of activity H.R. 3699 seeks to curtail in the AAP’s view, namely public access mandates and the development of repositories for publicly funded research.

Reading the text of the bill, the definition of what constitutes “private-sector research work” is particularly troubling:

The term ‘private-sector research work’ means an article intended to be published in a scholarly or scientific publication, or any version of such an article, that is not a work of the United States Government (as defined in section 101 of title 17, United States Code), describing or interpreting research funded in whole or in part by a Federal agency and to which a commercial or nonprofit publisher has made or has entered into an arrangement to make a value-added contribution, including peer review or editing.

Looking closely, we see that the bill seeks to define “private-sector research work” by the intent of its author rather than the source of his or her funding or employment. This emphasis on authorial intention rather than affiliation elides the fact that much of the research this bill addresses does not originate in the private sector as we typically understand it–the realm of for-profit entities, businesses, and individuals outside the realm of state control or support. Instead, much of this research springs from the activity of public institutions, government funding, and not-for-profit entities such as private universities.

Secondly, the definition emphasizes the “value-added contribution” of publishers. While publishers do indeed perform valuable tasks in the service of disseminating research, one could argue that they are not necessarily the only (or even the primary) actors in this process. For example, the text of bill cites “peer review” as a contribution that publishers make to research product. However, it is important to note that for most journals publishers only facilitate the peer review process, while the work of peer review is actually performed by scholars who are typically not compensated monetarily for their effort. Yes, publishers do provide unique and valuable services, but their work should be understood in the larger context of scholarly communication.

Given the potentially wide-ranging impact of this bill, there is sure to be much more discussion to come. Stay tuned.

NB: I am indebted to MPublishing’s own Jim Ottaviani for his careful legislative exegesis.



2 Responses to “More Legislative Shenanigans: Research Works Act (H.R. 3699)”

  1. Stevan Harnad

    “Research Works Act H.R.3699: The Private Publishing Tail Trying To Wag The Public Research Dog, Yet Again”


    The US Research Works Act (H.R.3699):

    “No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue, or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity that — (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of any private-sector research work without the prior consent of the publisher of such work; or (2) requires that any actual or prospective author, or the employer of such an actual or prospective author, assent to network dissemination of a private-sector research work.”

    Translation and Comments:

    “If public tax money is used to fund research, that research becomes “private research” once a publisher “adds value” to it by managing the peer review.”

    [Comment: Researchers do the peer review for the publisher for free, just as researchers give their papers to the publisher for free, together with the exclusive right to sell subscriptions to it, on-paper and online, seeking and receiving no fee or royalty in return].

    “Since that public research has thereby been transformed into “private research,” and the publisher’s property, the government that funded it with public tax money should not be allowed to require the funded author to make it accessible for free online for those users who cannot afford subscription access.”

    [Comment: The author’s sole purpose in doing and publishing the research, without seeking any fee or royalties, is so that all potential users can access, use and build upon it, in further research and applications, to the benefit of the public that funded it; this is also the sole purpose for which public tax money is used to fund research.]”

    H.R. 3699 misunderstands the secondary, service role that peer-reviewed research journal publishing plays in US research and development and its (public) funding….


  1.  » SOPA and the Research Works Act: Evil master plan or do publishers think so little of us? Library Attack!
  2.  Proposed Bill Threatens Open Access to Taxpayer-Funded Research | Tea Party Base
  3.  Open Access Under Threat: HR 3699 | Care2 Causes
  4.  Open Access Under Threat: HR 3699 |
  5.  Open Access Under Threat: HR 3699 | Internet Privacy And Security
  6.  Bericht aus dem Open-Access-Krieg |
  7.  Around the Web: Some posts on The Research Works Act (Now chronological!) [Confessions of a Science Librarian] | iPhone 2 die 4
  8.  US Research Works Act Proposal – a new approach to attack Open Access? | EDaWaX
  9.  Open knowledge saves lives. Oppose H.R. 3699! |
  10.  Open knowledge saves lives. Oppose H.R. 3699!–Gilles Frydman | Knowledge of Medicine
  11.  More Legislative Shenanigans: Research Works Act (H.R. 3699) | Open Research & Learning |
  12.  My thoughts on SOPA, PIPA and RWA
  13.  Thursday Threads: SOPA, PROTECT-IP, Research Works Act, and Broad E-Textbook Pilot | Disruptive Library Technology Jester