What to do? So many topics I'd like to write a diary on today, including the use of War on Terror Language to refer to the need to renew NCLB, but then I saw the following article from Wired. Alas, I barely have time for this one, so it'll be short.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has pledged this year to resurrect the Federal Research Public Access Act (S.2695), which would require federally funded research to become publicly available online within six months of being published.
I doubt that the bill would pass, but it would have far-reaching ramifications. Follow me over the flip for some brief thoughts.
First, it should not be surprising that this bill was initially co-sponsored in its first form by our favorite non-Democrat, Joe "mentum" Lieberman.
Cornyn and the groups who support the bill believe that since the government funds scientific research, it should be available to all. Ok, so what's wrong with that? Also, it would deprive scientific publishing of their profits? Those greedy journals like Nature! Ah, but there's more to it:
Critics say money is the publishers' main concern: "They want to preserve their profits," said Gunther Eysenbach, an associate professor at the University of Toronto and publisher of the open-access Journal of Medical Internet Research. "That's their prerogative, being commercial publishers."
But the publishers say there's more to it. They warn that government interference will harm science.
"Our core message is that we believe in the integrity of the peer-review system and the investments in it," said Brian Crawford, chairman of the executive council of the Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers. "It's inappropriate for the government (to interfere)."
Publishers argue that mandatory open access could cripple the respected peer-review system which is maintained, they say, by hefty subscription and advertising fees. While reviewers often aren't paid, finding and tracking them is expensive.
The bill would apply to only federally funded research, but that's more than half the research in science journals, and up to 30 percent of in clinical journals (the rest is mostly paid for by pharmaceutical companies), according to Peter Banks, a publishing consultant and former publisher of medical journals in Fairfax, Virginia.
The crippling of peer-review is what I believe is really behind this bill. And to many people it will sound like a good idea, stressing such comforting buzz words like "Open Access." But it's just another tactic in dismantling the reality-based bias of peer review.
Full Disclosure: Based on many of the excellent posts below, I thought I should add this. I am not a scientist; I am rather in the Humanities. Therefore, I am not privy to the ins and outs of academic scientific publishing. However, I am still concerned nevertheless. Maybe this is just the result of entering the internet age, or maybe publishers are making too much of a profit of hording information, but I am still concerned. I am always cautious about the implications of governmental oversight when it comes to universities, even when it's federally funded.
Update: In the spirit of peer review, I'm adding this note and a poll. I was perhaps overhasty in taking Some of the Wired article at face value, but if we take their assertion that Open Access hurts peer review, then we have every reason to be concerned. However, I also take seriously the comments below that suggest different economic perspectives of scientific publishing. A similar but differing point that is raised is that while peer review may not be effected, the ability of journals to publish at the same rate might be.
I'm very sympathetic to patient advocacy groups who want access to data (I myself have a vested interest in some areas of medical research), but there needs to be more work and analysis done on what the ramifications of open access would be for scientific publishing.
I also changed my title to be less reactionary and less rhetorically overblown.