Comments on: July 27th hearing on FRPAA: Who opposes public access to publicly funded research? http://openbiomed.info/2010/07/us-house-committee-to-hold-hearing-on-proposed-expanding-public-access-to-publicly-funded-research/ Accelerating access to biomedical evidence Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:31:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Katie Newman http://openbiomed.info/2010/07/us-house-committee-to-hold-hearing-on-proposed-expanding-public-access-to-publicly-funded-research/comment-page-1/#comment-186 Katie Newman Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:20:41 +0000 http://openbiomed.info/?p=659#comment-186 According to the referenced DC Principles site, some of the publishers who oppose FRPAA were left off this listing ... Royal College of Psychiatrists Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine Society of Nuclear Medicine Society for the Study of Reproduction Soil Science Society of America Springer Publishing Company Thieme Publishers University of Chicago Press Wolters Kluwer Health While in number the scholarly publishers may outnumber the commercial, I doubt that's true as far as the number of journals they publish -- Elsevier? Wiley? Springer? etc. According to the referenced DC Principles site, some of the publishers who oppose FRPAA were left off this listing …
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine
Society of Nuclear Medicine
Society for the Study of Reproduction
Soil Science Society of America
Springer Publishing Company
Thieme Publishers
University of Chicago Press
Wolters Kluwer Health

While in number the scholarly publishers may outnumber the commercial, I doubt that’s true as far as the number of journals they publish — Elsevier? Wiley? Springer? etc.

]]> By: Bill would require public access to research : Covering Health http://openbiomed.info/2010/07/us-house-committee-to-hold-hearing-on-proposed-expanding-public-access-to-publicly-funded-research/comment-page-1/#comment-182 Bill would require public access to research : Covering Health Wed, 21 Jul 2010 20:27:15 +0000 http://openbiomed.info/?p=659#comment-182 [...] 29 in the Rayburn House Office Building, room 2154. A list of organizations opposing the bill is at www.openbiomed.info, taken from a letter (PDF) to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Doyle’s site [...] [...] 29 in the Rayburn House Office Building, room 2154. A list of organizations opposing the bill is at http://www.openbiomed.info, taken from a letter (PDF) to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Doyle’s site [...]

]]> By: T Scott http://openbiomed.info/2010/07/us-house-committee-to-hold-hearing-on-proposed-expanding-public-access-to-publicly-funded-research/comment-page-1/#comment-180 T Scott Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:46:00 +0000 http://openbiomed.info/?p=659#comment-180 It should also be pointed out that most of the publishers that are listed under your heading "Want to see the arguments that the commercial sector will take?" are not-for-profit societies, not commercial publishers. It should also be pointed out that most of the publishers that are listed under your heading “Want to see the arguments that the commercial sector will take?” are not-for-profit societies, not commercial publishers.

]]> By: T Scott http://openbiomed.info/2010/07/us-house-committee-to-hold-hearing-on-proposed-expanding-public-access-to-publicly-funded-research/comment-page-1/#comment-179 T Scott Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:34:38 +0000 http://openbiomed.info/?p=659#comment-179 The hearing is not specifically on FRPAA -- it is on the broader question of Public Access. The signatories of the DC principles letter are not necessarily opposed to public access, they are opposed to FRPAA. These are not the same thing. The members of the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable are extremely supportive of public access, but the majority of us do not think that FRPAA, as currently drafted, is necessarily the best way to achieve that. It is my hope that a broad range of issues will be discussed at the hearing and that what results will be something that does a better job of incorporating the principles of the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable report than the current draft of FRPAA does. The hearing is not specifically on FRPAA — it is on the broader question of Public Access. The signatories of the DC principles letter are not necessarily opposed to public access, they are opposed to FRPAA. These are not the same thing. The members of the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable are extremely supportive of public access, but the majority of us do not think that FRPAA, as currently drafted, is necessarily the best way to achieve that. It is my hope that a broad range of issues will be discussed at the hearing and that what results will be something that does a better job of incorporating the principles of the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable report than the current draft of FRPAA does.

]]>