- The articles are free; anyone with internet access will be able to read them.
- Following APA’s Journal Article Reporting Standards, the authors of each article will provide a complete description of the methodology that they used when conducting their research.
- The article authors will be making their data open to the public; it will be available from APA or another approved repository. Other researchers will be able to use this data if they obtain permission to do so from the article authors.
- Each article will have two versions of an abstract and methodology section. One version will be geared towards the layperson, the other towards the scholarly community.
- Both the article and the comments made by reviewers who took part in the peer-review process will be published online.
Though FRPAA was not yet being considered in Committee–it has to attract more cosponsors before committees will plan hearings on it, according to the spokesman for Mike Doyle (D-PA)–, Stuart Shieber, Director of the Office for Scholarly Communication at Harvard University and Elliot Maxwell, Fellow of the Communications Program at Johns Hopkins University testified on its behalf, saying it would provide better access to research results and economic benefits.
Scott Plutchak of the Health Sciences Library at U. Alabama, Birmingham, H. Dylla of the American Institute of Physics, and Dr. Crispin Taylor Executive Director of the American Society of Plant Biologists argued that FRPAA was a “blanket approach” that would restrict innovation, publisher profits and flexibility, and ultimately access.
Plutchak, Dylla, and Taylor all spoke of the America COMPETES Act as more likely than FRPAA to foster a “robust” and “nuanced” system that encourages flexibility and federal agency/publisher partnerships. Taylor’s testimony repeatedly urged a “sensible, flexible, and cautious” approach.
Maxwell’s testimony referred to his own research on the economics of journal publishing in the NIH-mandate environment, in which he found not only that there was no evidence that the NIH policy harmed journal subscription rates, profits, or ability to carry out peer-review, but that in the environment of the NIH mandate, new journals continued to proliferate and existing journals increased profit margins.
Shieber’s testimony touched on other economic potentials of Open Access, such as text mining, which would of course depend on comprehensive availability of open-source articles.
He also pointed out “systemic problems” in the existing journal publishing structure that prevent the “widest possible dissemination” of scholarly materials. He had two recommendations for solving this distribution problem:
1. More institutions should emulate open access policies like Harvard’s, which mandates that faculty grant a license to the university to distribute their scholarly articles through article repositories;
2. Scholars should, when possible, publish research in open-access journals, which repositions the cost of journal publishing from libraries on behalf of readers to funding agencies and/or employing institutions on behalf of authors.
The anti-FRPAA position was represented neatly by Taylor, who said, “A centralized approach discourages innovation by driving traffic away from innovators, including publishers, thus minimizing scientific and commercial opportunities.”
Taylor’s position, though, rests on three assumptions: One, that publishers have a greater claim on innovation in this area than scholars, universities, university libraries, and federal agencies; two, that publishers’ current contributions to academic publishing (coordinating peer review, page composition, copyediting, and listing and linking of bibliographic and reference data) would be unsustainable under the mandated deposit models championed by Shieber and Maxwell; and three, that publishers would operate in good faith and continue to work toward an open access model of publication without mandates to do so.
The first two are arguable positions, though Maxwell has demonstrated that the second position seems to fall apart under close scrutiny. The third position, given the meteoric rise in subscription prices and the growth of academic publisher profits during a recession, seems hard to support.
If the words “sweeping new exemptions to the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act” make you want whoop for joy and join a conga line, you just might be a fair use advocate — one who wants professors and students to be able to decrypt and excerpt copyrighted video content for lectures and class projects. Since Monday, a lot of advocates have been dancing.
“This is very exciting,” says Patricia Aufderheide, a communications professor and director of the Center for Social Media at American University. “We’re doing nothing but chat about this, we’re so excited.”
The thing that has made so many professors abuzz — and a-blog — is the latest round of rule changes, issued Monday by the U.S. Copyright Office, dealing with what is legal and what is not as far as decrypting and repurposing copyrighted content.
One change in particular is making waves in academe: an exemption that allows professors in all fields and “film and media studies students” to hack encrypted DVD content and clip “short portions” into documentary films and “non-commercial videos.”
In The Library of Congress Digital Collections & Services is the Prints & Posters collection with an Prints & Photographs Online Catalog. One collection is #55 Posters WPA Posters (1936-1943) of 907 posters produced to publicize theatrical productions, exhibits, health and educational programs. W.P.A. refers to the Works Progress Administation (renamed Work Projects Administation in 1939). It was created by an presidential order early in the President F. D. Roosevelt administration.
….from Inside Higher Ed
To some, Google’s mammoth book digitization project with university libraries is the ultimate combination of technology and scholarship, potentially making millions of volumes available to audiences that could never visit major research libraries in person. To others, the project represents a dangerous centralization and corporatization of content.
Complicating the debate (and obviously there are many viewpoints somewhere in between) has been an uncertainty about how Google would make the new library available. On Wednesday, Google and the University of Michigan announced new details — and while the plan for pricing was still vague, the basics of the model became more clear.