How to Counter All Opposition to the US Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) Self-Archiving Mandate s.n.
Eight-point strategy for countering the publishing lobby's opposition to the US Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) Self-Archiving Mandate: (1) empirical evidence of the positive effect of self-archiving on research impact; (2) absence of empirical evidence of negative effect of self-archiving on publisher subscription revenues; (3) mandate deposit of full text and metadata immediately upon acceptance for publication and allow delay only for access-setting to the full text(Open Access vs. Closed Access); (4) 94% of journals already endorse immediate access-setting to OA; a semi-automatic email-eprint request feature of the archiving software can tide over any embargo period for the remaining 6%; (5) abstain from speculating or counterspeculating about subscription declines until/unless there is any evidence for them; (6) the mandate itself is the empirical test of whether there will be any effect on subscriptions; the outcome can be reviewed annually; (7) the primary purpose of Open Access is to provide access to researchers who are would-be users but cannot afford access, in order to maximise the benefits of the research to the public that funds it; public access to the research articles themselves is only a secondary benefit, for the minority of research articles that the general public might actually be interested in reading; (8) all evidence indicates that voluntary self-archiving policies fail, whereas mandatory ones are successful.
||Commentary On: Science and innovation investment framework 2004-2014: next steps. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/1E1/5E/bud06_science_332.pdf
||open access, self-archiving, research policy, research impact, citation
||Web & Internet Science
||11 Jun 2006
||17 Apr 2017 21:38
|Further Information:||Google Scholar|
Actions (login required)