Eighty-one publishers of scholarly journals today expressed their strong opposition to the proposed Federal Research Public Access Act, or FRPAA. The bill, introduced as HR 4004 in the U.S. House of Representatives and as S 2096 in the Senate, would require the results of federally supported research be made public within six months of publication. “FRPAA is little more than an attempt at intellectual eminent domain, but without fair compensation to authors,” Tom Allen, president of the Association of American Publishers, said in a written statement. The association, along with an advocacy group called the DC Principles Coalition, sent letters to Congress on behalf of the journal publishers who oppose the legislation.
Really? That's the best argument the publishers have? See David Wiley's response:
- "Without fair compensation to authors?" Do the publishers really want to go here? The hypocrisy is so thick you couldn't cut it with a chainsaw. I've never received ANY compensation under the CURRENT regime. The publishers are in NO sense protecting authors' compensation by opposing open access - they aren't compensating us now!
- I'll tell you what would be fair compensation to me, the author, for writing a journal article - let anyone who wants to read my article read it. I don't write to make publishers billion dollar profits. I write for the benefit of my field and, by extension, humanity. An open access requirement like FRPAA is the best compensation I could possibly receive.
- And yes, when the public pays with tax dollars for research to be conducted, that same public that paid for the research has an absolute right to read the results of that research. Buy one, get one - when you buy a pizza or a car, you expect to receive a pizza or a car. And when taxpayers foot the bill for a research study, they absolutely have the reasonable expectation of access to the results of that study.
I also added my two cents as a reply under David's good comments.