From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:04:34 -0600

I hope this is indeed not the end of the discussion. I posted this
comment earlier today on The Scholarly Kitchen:

> The other issue that has not received much attention is why peer review is considered so important for the value of this research for the general public. Librarians have indeed used the rhetoric of not serving the taxpaying public in defending the NIH policy, but that argument depends upon an assumption that peer review is crucial for this purpose. But is it? Peer review exists because academe requires a system of vetting to satisfy its needs for assessment of the quality of research conducted by faculty. The primary question that peer review answers is how much of a contribution an article makes to the advancement of research in the field. But is that a question the public even wants to have answered? What it needs is some assurance that the research has been carried out responsibly and the results it reports are accurate and reliable. This is the kind of "light peer review" assessment that PLoS One is now providing. Maybe that kind of review could be made part of the process for validating any final report of government-sponsored research that is posted to the Net: a government "good housekeeping" seal of approval. I find it ironic that some of the same people who are lambasting publishers about RWA and supporting FRPPA are complaining elsewhere about how inadequate peer review is, and how we should all be moving in the direction of post-publication crowd peer review. It seems to me that if you accept the soundness of the latter argument, you should abandon arguing for the NIH approach as the best solution to the problem of access to government-funded research.

This was a comment to the following post:
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/02/27/the-missing-outcry-are-the-nih-and-its-researchers-shirking-their-obligations/

Sandy Thatcher


> From: "Lowe, Chrysanne (ELS-SDG)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 14:46:43 +0000
>
> On behalf of Elsevier, I am writing to let the library community know
> that in consideration of feedback from our customers, Elsevier has
> decided to withdraw its support for the Research Works Act.  The
> official statement on Elsevier.com is reposted here as follows:
>
> Elsevier withdraws support for Research Works Act
>
> At Elsevier, we have always focused on serving the global research
> community and ensuring the best possible access to research
> publications and data. In recent weeks, our support for the Research
> Works Act has caused some in the community to question that
> commitment.
>
> We have heard expressions of support from publishers and scholarly
> societies for the principle behind the legislation. However, we have
> also heard from some Elsevier journal authors, editors and reviewers
> who were concerned that the Act seemed inconsistent with Elsevier's
> long-standing support for expanding options for free and low-cost
> public access to scholarly literature. That was certainly not our
> intention in supporting it. This perception runs counter to our
> commitment to making published research widely accessible, coming at a
> time when we continue to expand our access options for authors and
> develop advanced technologies to enable the sharing and distribution
> of research results.
>
> We welcome indications that key research funders are more willing to
> talk to publishers to explore collaborative approaches. This is a good
> sign because we firmly believe that more cooperation and partnership
> between funders and publishers is the best way to expand free public
> access.
>
> While we continue to oppose government mandates in this area, Elsevier
> is withdrawing support for the Research Work Act itself. We hope this
> will address some of the concerns expressed and help create a less
> heated and more productive climate for our ongoing discussions with
> research funders.
>
> Cooperation and collaboration are critical because different kinds of
> journals in different fields have different economics and models.
> Inflexible mandates that do not take those differences into account
> and do not involve the publisher in decision making can undermine the
> peer-reviewed journals that serve an essential purpose in the research
> community. Therefore, while withdrawing support for the Research Works
> Act, we will continue to join with those many other nonprofit and
> commercial publishers and scholarly societies that oppose repeated
> efforts to extend mandates through legislation.
>
> We are ready and willing to work constructively and cooperatively to
> continue to promote free and low-cost public access through a variety
> of means, as we have with research funders and other partners around
> the world.
>
> Publication date: 27 February 2012
> ___________________________________________________________________________
>
> We recognize that the recent legislative debate is far from the only
> issue at hand. We acknowledge that, as the largest of the commercial
> publishers, we take a sizable share of your serials budget.  However,
> relative to our competitors, we are also confident that we deliver a
> significant share of value in terms of articles, usage, citations, and
> improved research productivity. (Note a related study on research
> output by the Research Information Network (RIN)
> http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/e-journals-their-use-value-and-impact.)
> Since the transition from print to electronic dissemination, Elsevier
> has worked with libraries to develop business models that reflect the
> varied information needs of individual institutions and the value
> delivered.  While some librarians ask for pay-per-view, numerous
> librarians argue for the "big deal".  Towards these multiple ends, we
> have evolved to offer a broad menu of purchasing options: from article
> level pay-per-view, title-by-title purchases, subjection collections
> to the Freedom Collection.
>
> These many choices are described on our website at:
> http://www.info.sciverse.com/sciencedirect/buying/primary_license_options
>
> Additionally, we have an increasing and evolving number of open access
> choices available to our authors described at:
> http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/open_access
>
> We have been on a long path of change and we will not rest.  We will
> continue to work with you and our authors to steadily evolve pricing
> and business models, not towards a single model, but towards
> increasingly diverse options; always focused on how we can demonstrate
> and increase our value.
>
> We wish to thank the library community in particular, for engaging in
> the recent debate with thoughtful and respectful dialog.  We have
> welcomed your comments, counsel and constructive criticism both in
> public and in private forums. With the library community, we continue
> to achieve better outcomes for scholarly communications.
>
> Chrysanne Lowe
> Vice President Marketing Communications