<font><font face="'trebuchet ms', sans-serif">[Forwarding from Mike Rossner at Rockefeller U Press, via Liblicense. --Peter Suber.]</font><br><br></font><div class="gmail_quote"><br>From: Mike Rossner <<a href="mailto:rossner@mail.rockefeller.edu">rossner@mail.rockefeller.edu</a>><br>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 19:32:38 -0400<br>
<br>
For the reference of Liblicense readers, the following letter was just<br>
sent to all Rockefeller University Press subscribers:<br>
<br>
Dear Librarian,<br>
<br>
I am writing to clarify the position of The Rockefeller University<br>
Press (RUP) on various legislative efforts regarding public access to<br>
publications resulting from federally funded research. RUP is a<br>
member of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and the<br>
Association of American University Presses (AAUP), who have both<br>
recently provided position statements on this issue. However, RUP<br>
does not agree with those statements.<br>
<br>
RUP is a subscription-based publisher that publishes three biomedical<br>
research journals: The Journal of Cell Biology, The Journal of<br>
Experimental Medicine, and The Journal of General Physiology. We have<br>
released our back content to the public since 2001 – long before any<br>
federal mandates existed – because we believe we have an obligation to<br>
give something back to the public that funds the research we publish.<br>
<br>
The AAP supported the now-defunct Research Works Act. RUP strongly<br>
opposed that act.<br>
<br>
Both the AAP and AAUP have opposed the Federal Research Public Access<br>
Act (FRPAA), which has been re-introduced into both the House and<br>
Senate. Although numerous non-profit publishers signed the AAP letter,<br>
the RUP does not stand with those publishers. RUP supports FRPAA in<br>
principle. We know from the NIH public access policy that mandated<br>
access to the results of federally-funded research is necessary to get<br>
certain publishers to release this content to the public, and we<br>
support legislation to extend the NIH policy to other large federal<br>
funding agencies.<br>
<br>
The AAP and AAUP use a one-size-does-not-fit-all argument to oppose<br>
FRPAA because the drafted legislation calls for all large federal<br>
agencies to mandate public access six months after publication.<br>
Although it can be argued that a six-month embargo period may not be<br>
suitable for all disciplines covered by FRPAA, this is not grounds to<br>
oppose the legislation altogether. It should be supported in<br>
principle and could be modified during Congressional review to provide<br>
the flexibility for each agency to choose its own embargo period.<br>
<br>
The continuing rhetoric from the AAP and AAUP about having ongoing<br>
"conversations" about access to the results of publicly funded<br>
research is outdated. There is legislation on the table that will<br>
help to make public access a reality now.<br>
<br>
Yours sincerely,<br>
<br>
Mike Rossner<br>
Executive Director<br>
<br>
These comments are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily<br>
reflect the position of The Rockefeller University.<br>
</div><br>