Peer
review and the many benefits it provides society face a
number of threats. Whether it’s the intrusion of
politics in the process of scientific discovery, the taking
of intellectual property by governments without compensation
or the broad distribution of quackery, the risks to peer
review are real and significant.
The Proper Role of Government
History
credits Thomas Paine with observing, “That government
is best which governs least.” But increasingly, the federal
government has encroached on the publisher-financed peer review
process with increased pressure to surrender rights to intellectual
property and proposals that government compete with not-for-profit
and commercial journal publishers who manage and fund peer
review.
The Publishers for Research Integrity in Science and
Medicine Coalition will oppose any effort to undermine the
peer review process through the expropriation of the intellectual
property that makes peer review possible.
The U.S. federal
government spends billions of dollars each year for
research. Now, they want to control its dissemination.
This raises questions about what might happen should
any field of research not square with the politics
of the day and whether the research community has grown
too dependent on government funding and regulation.
It is a slippery slope and the prospective negative
impact on the peer review systems that protect us all
looms large.
Keeping Politics Out of Science
It’s
not unusual for politics to collide with scientific discovery.
When the advancement of knowledge clashes with ideology -
regardless of its origin along the political spectrum - good
science and the peer review that supports it are at risk.
The independence of peer review referees and the journals
that publish their work must always be guided by the precepts
of scientific discovery, not political expediency. The Publishers
for Research Integrity in Science and Medicine Coalition
stands poised to oppose the intrusion of political influences
in scientific research and we urge our colleagues to resist
such intrusions.
Another
troubling aspect of increased government intrusion
in scientific publishing is how the federal budget
process operates. The congressional spending and appropriations
process has grown increasingly contentious over the
past decade. In many years, federal budgets are not
even fully written, voted upon and signed into law
by the traditional October 1 deadline. Continuing resolutions
have become a much more common means of paying for
government functions as lawmakers debate the final
versions of federal budgets.
Compounding the
unreliability of the legislative budget process is the
size of the budget itself. The Fiscal Year 2007 budget
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency includes,
among other things, a proposed reduction of 80% for the
EPA’s library system. This cut threatens to
close large segments of the agency’s network of libraries
and its electronic cataloging system. The time, effort and
tax money invested to create and maintain this research library
system stands to be squandered because of shifting political
mores and spending priorities.
When something like this happens,
it serves to make clear the critical role that non-profit
and commercial publishers play in preserving scientific information
and making it accessible to the research community in perpetuity.
For more than 100 years, publisher financed peer review
has well served the American research community and indeed
the entire world. The threats posed by increased government
intervention, and the inherent risks of inviting flawed or
biased research into the scientific community, should give
pause to those who value the integrity of peer review.
This time-tested means of validating science has been threatened
by proposed legislation in the United States Senate. Senate
Bill 2695, first introduced in 2006, would have required
not-for-profit and commercial journals to surrender their
peer reviewed articles to the federal government when the
underlying research is funded with tax money. It amounted
to an expropriation of intellectual property, without compensation,
that undermined an entire industry and the peer review publishing
it provides.
There are indications
the same or similar legislation will be introduced during
the 110 th Congress, so it’s important
to understand the bill as it was initially proposed.
Senate Bill S. 2695
109th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2695
To provide for Federal agencies to develop public access
policies relating to research conducted by employees of that
agency or from funds administered by that agency.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 2, 2006
Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. LIEBERMAN) introduced the
following bill; which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
A BILL
To provide for Federal agencies to develop public access
policies relating to research conducted by employees of that
agency or from funds administered by that agency.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Federal Research Public Access
Act of 2006'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the Federal Government funds basic and applied research
with the expectation that new ideas and discoveries that
result from the research, if shared and effectively disseminated,
will advance science and improve the lives and welfare of
people of the United States and around the world; and
(2) the Internet makes it possible for this information
to be promptly available to every scientist, physician, educator,
and citizen at home, in school, or in a library.
SEC. 3. DEFINITION.
In this Act the term `Federal agency' means an Executive
agency defined under section 105 of title 5, United States
Code.
SEC. 4. FEDERAL RESEARCH PUBLIC ACCESS POLICY.
(a) In General- Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, each Federal agency with extramural
research expenditures of over $100,000,000 shall develop
a Federal research public access policy that is consistent
with and advances purposes of the Federal agency.
(b) Content- Each Federal research public access policy
shall provide for--
(1) submission to the Federal agency of an electronic version
of the author's final manuscript of original research papers
that have been accepted for publication in peer-reviewed
journals and result from research supported, in whole or
in part, from funding by the Federal Government;
(2) the incorporation of all changes resulting from the
peer review publication process in the manuscript described
under paragraph (1);
(3) the replacement of the final manuscript with the final
published version if--
(A) the publisher consents to the replacement; and
(B) the goals of the Federal agency for functionality and
interoperability are retained;
(4) free online public access to such final peer-reviewed
manuscripts or published versions as soon as practicable,
but not later than 6 months after publication in peer-reviewed
journals;
(5) production of an online bibliography of all research
papers that are publicly accessible under the policy, with
each entry linking to the corresponding free online full
text; and
(6) long-term preservation of, and free public access to,
published research findings--
(A) in a stable digital repository
maintained by the Federal agency; or
(B) if consistent with the purposes of the Federal agency,
in any repository meeting conditions determined favorable
by the Federal agency, including free public access, interoperability,
and long-term preservation.
(c) Application of Policy- Each Federal research public
access policy shall--
(1) apply to--
(A) researchers employed by the Federal agency whose works
remain in the public domain; and
(B) researchers funded by the Federal agency;
(2) provide that works described under paragraph (1)(A)
shall be--
(A) marked as being public domain material when published;
and
(B) made immediately available under subsection (b)(4);
and
(3) make effective use of any law or guidance relating
to the creation and reservation of a Government license that
provides for the reproduction, publication, release, or other
uses of a final manuscript for Federal purposes.
(d) Exclusions- Each Federal research public access policy
shall not apply to--
(1) laboratory notes, preliminary data analyses, notes
of the author, phone logs, or other information used to produce
final manuscripts;
(2) classified research, research resulting in works that
generate revenue or royalties for authors (such as books)
or patentable discoveries, to the extent necessary to protect
a copyright or patent; or
(3) authors who do not submit their work to a journal or
works that are rejected by journals.
(e) Patent or Copyright Law- Nothing in this Act shall
be construed to affect any right under the provisions of
title 17 or 35, United States Code.
(f) Report-
(1) IN GENERAL-
Not later than October 1, of each year, the head of each
Federal agency shall submit a report on the Federal research
public access policy of that agency to—
(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate;
(B) the Committee on Government Reform of the House of
Representatives; and
(C) any other committee of Congress of appropriate jurisdiction.
(2) CONTENT- Each report under this subsection shall include--
(A) a statement of the effectiveness of the Federal research
public access policy in providing the public with free online
access to papers on research funded by the Federal agency;
(B) a list of papers published in peer-reviewed journals
that report on research funded by the Federal agency;
(C) a corresponding list of papers made available by the
Federal agency as a result of the Federal research public
access policy; and
(D) a summary of the periods of time between public availability
of each paper in a journal and in the online repository of
the Federal agency.
(3) PUBLIC AVAILABILITY- The Federal agency shall make
the statement under paragraph (2)(A) and the lists of papers
under subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (2) available
to the public by posting such statement and lists on the
website of the Federal agency.
The Problems With Senate Bill 2695
S. 2695 would have placed the independent peer-review
process in jeopardy. While tax money may pay for
certain scientific research, it does not pay
for the peer-review publishing process – publishers
do. By destroying a significant revenue stream for scholarly
journals, this bill threatened the financial viability
of the journals that conduct peer-reviews.
S. 2695 was tantamount to an unconstitutional taking
of intellectual property by the federal government. It
would have required journals to essentially give away their
product to the federal government without compensation.
This bill, if re-introduced, would result in the compulsory
forfeiture of intellectual property by publishers, raising
serious ‘due process’ questions.
S. 2695 overstepped the bounds of government. It
is unnecessary for the federal government to intervene in
the publishing business in such a manner and does so at the
expense and detriment of private sector publishers.
S. 2695 would have given too much power to bureaucrats. It
would have created an opportunity for bureaucrats to subvert
the goal of public access by letting them take publishers’ own
material and use it to duplicate and compete with not-for-profit
and commercial publishers.
S. 2695 would have resulted in document repositories
that are not necessarily sustainable. The ability
of the federal government to maintain steady funding for
repositories, like those proposed in S. 2695, is subject
to budget economics and shifting political priorities.
An example is the proposed 80% reduction in funding for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency libraries in the
Fiscal Year 2007 budget.
S.2695 amounted to a form of censorship. Journals
would have been required to give away some of their articles
but not all of them, only those based on government funded
research. This would result in a form of censorship based
on an incomplete and possibly biased repository of information
because the bill would apply to government funded research.
S. 2695 would have crippled the business prospects
of peer-reviewed journals. The bill, if re-introduced,
would require compulsory forfeiture of peer-reviewed articles
six months after publishing, yet such articles achieve
less than 30% of their lifetime value after six months,
resulting in future losses of 70% or more for journals
that conduct peer review.
S. 2695 would have placed an undue burden on publishers
of society and other not-for-profit medical, scientific
and scholarly journals. These journals also conduct
and manage the review of submissions by other professionals.
Forcing journals to give away their work would jeopardize
their ability to continue funding serious peer review.
S. 2695 would have impeded medical and scientific
innovation. The nature of peer-reviewed journals
makes them attractive to the nation’s top research
experts and institutions. By risking the future of the
peer-review process, this bill, if re-introduced, would
discourage future research efforts by America’s best
and brightest research minds.
S. 2695
might as well have been called “The
Advancement of Junk Science Act of 2006.” By
threatening the viability and the very existence of peer-reviewed
journals, S. 2695 risked the opening of the floodgates
for non-peer reviewed junk science to enter the marketplace.
S. 2695 was unfair and inequitable, singling out
a specific segment of activity. The federal government
provides hundreds of millions of dollars in grants each
year without forcing grantees to give away their work.
Recipients of grants from the National Endowment for the
Arts are not required to give away their art, nor are farmers
receiving Department of Agricultural grants required to
give away their crops.
S. 2695 was not necessary. Independent
peer review has been the Gold Standard of separating pure
science from junk science since Henry Oldenburg started the
Royal Society of London’s Philosophical Transactions in
the mid-1600s (1665, to be precise). Works published in medical,
scientific and scholarly journals are already available at
no cost to taxpayers through local libraries and universities,
as well as through existing private-sector on-line databases.
back to top
|
