Executive Director
According to that bastion of information, Wikipedia, the "Occupy movement is an international protest movement against social and economic inequality…" Around 2000, the discourse surrounding scholarly communications issues turned towards public access, or the idea that research information and data from government funded studies should be available to all, free of charge. The National Library of Medicine founded PubMed Central (PMC), "a free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature." The National Institutes of Health (NIH) instituted a public access policy requiring that articles resulting from publicly funded research were to be deposited in the PMC archive. To date, 2.4 million articles have been archived. PMC includes more than the required research articles; entire journals are deposited and their content made openly available. This is an emotionally and philosophically charged issue for government research funders, publishers, the public, and the library community. No matter where you stand on the issues, it is undeniable that the last six months have seen some incredible progress and press on this issue.
For example:
- The Federal Research Public Access Act, or FRPAA, was introduced in both the House (H.R.4004) and Senate (S.2096) in early February. This would require that research manuscripts resulting from funding from around 11 departments/agencies beyond NIH (including NSF, DOE, and DOD) be made available to the public within six months of publication.
- The withdrawal of the Research Works Act (RWA). Introduced by Representatives Issa and Maloney, the bill contained provisions to prohibit open access mandates which would have stymied the NIH public access policy. After major opposition and criticism by open science and open access advocates, the bill was withdrawn.
- The Cost of Knowledge movement founded by mathematician Timothy Gowers to protest the publishing practices and access practices of Elsevier. After vowing never to publish papers or serve as a referee or editor for them, Gowers’s petition has attracted over 11,000 signatories.
- In The Scientist, March 19, 2012, an opinion piece: "Opinion: Academic Publishing is Broken."
- In The Economist, April 14, 2012, another piece entitled "Academic publishing: Open sesame."
- And at Harvard on April 17, the Faculty Advisory Council sent a memo to all faculty members questioning the sustainability of journal pricing and advocating for other publishing options. The text of the memo is posted on the Harvard University web site.
Clearly, these issues are attracting great attention and gaining traction. This spring has seen more activity than any other time I can remember. Perhaps it is not "Occupy Schol Comm" but the "Schol Comm Spring?" What can, and should, we be doing on our campus? Send me your thoughts.