Research Works Act

Research Works Act
U.S. Government · Public domain · source
Title	Research Works Act
Long title	An Act to ensure the continued publication and integrity of academic journals and related materials
Introduced	December 16, 2011
Introduced by	John Conyers (U.S. House of Representatives)
Enacted	Not enacted
Status	Failed to advance

Research Works Act.

The Research Works Act was a proposed United States federal bill introduced in late 2011 that sought to restrict public access to certain scholarly articles and to regulate the distribution practices of academic publishers such as Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer Science+Business Media, Oxford University Press, and Cambridge University Press. The proposal generated intense debate among stakeholders including members of United States Congress, representatives from National Institutes of Health, officers from institutions such as Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Stanford University, and advocacy groups like Public Knowledge, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and SPARC.

Background and legislative history

The bill was introduced by Representatives John Conyers and Darrell Issa during the 112th United States Congress, following earlier policy debates sparked by mandates such as the NIH Public Access Policy and open access initiatives endorsed by bodies including Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and European Research Council. Proponents argued continuity with licensing practices of publishers including Elsevier and Taylor & Francis Group; opponents cited precedents from campaigns led by Aaron Swartz, protests at MIT, and policy shifts at institutions like University of California and Columbia University. Congressional hearings, exchanges between committees such as the House Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and media coverage by outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian, Science (journal), and Nature (journal) framed the legislative history.

Provisions and scope of the bill

The bill's text proposed prohibitions on federal agencies such as National Institutes of Health and restraints on federally funded authors concerning assignment of copyrights and distribution of final published versions. Language in the bill referenced relationships between authors and publishers similar to agreements used by American Chemical Society, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and Association for Computing Machinery. Critics compared the provisions to licensing models employed by Elsevier and Wiley, noting restrictions that would limit repository policies like those implemented at PubMed Central and mandates modeled on the NIH Public Access Policy. Supporters contended the bill would protect subscription revenue streams relied upon by scholarly journals including The Lancet, Cell (journal), Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Journal of the American Medical Association.

Supporters and opposition

Support for the bill came from trade organizations such as the Association of American Publishers and corporate publishers including Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell, as well as some Members of United States Congress who argued for protection of commercial publishing models. Opposition united a broad coalition: academic institutions (including Harvard University, Princeton University, Yale University), research agencies (such as National Science Foundation), learned societies like American Physical Society and Royal Society, and advocacy groups including Public Knowledge, SPARC, and Creative Commons. Prominent individuals who voiced opposition included researchers affiliated with MIT Media Lab, legal scholars from Stanford Law School, and scientists publishing in journals such as Nature (journal) and Science (journal).

Public reaction and advocacy campaigns

Public reaction included coordinated campaigns like the "Cost of Knowledge" boycott targeting Elsevier, petitions hosted by organizations such as Change.org and Ariadne (project)? as well as statements from university consortia including the Association of Research Libraries and the Coalition of Networked Information. Activists drew inspiration from earlier actions associated with Aaron Swartz and online movements linked to Open access movement, Open Knowledge Foundation, and Wikipedia. Coverage by The New York Times, The Guardian, BBC News, and specialty outlets like Retraction Watch amplified advocacy. Scholarly societies such as American Association for the Advancement of Science and editorial boards of titles like Lingua resigned en masse or threatened withdrawal from publishers in protest, while faculty senates at institutions including University of California debated institutional repository policies.

Impact and subsequent developments

Intense backlash prompted major publishers such as Elsevier to withdraw support, and proponents like John Conyers and Darrell Issa did not advance the legislation; the bill failed to become law. The controversy accelerated adoption of alternative models including publisher-supported open access journals like PLOS, eLife, and initiatives by Frontiers Media and spurred funder policies at bodies such as the Wellcome Trust, European Commission, and the National Institutes of Health to strengthen public access mandates. Repository infrastructure including PubMed Central and institutional repositories at Harvard University and MIT gained renewed emphasis, and negotiations between consortia like SCOAP3 and publishers influenced subscription and article processing charge models. The episode influenced later legislative and policy debates in United States Congress and international forums such as meetings of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Health Organization on research dissemination.

Category:United States proposed legislation