The 75 non-profit scholarly society publishers that were signatories to the Washington DC Principles for Free Access to Science Coalition have voiced their opposition to measures that would mandate open access to research literature within a specific time frame (as proposed by the 2006 Federal Research Public Access Act).
Basically they're saying that the long-standing system for sharing research results through scholarly publications has been working just fine, so why change it? They fear that changes to the current paradigm will wreck financial ruin on their publishing concerns. Furthermore they say, as signatories to the Washington DC Principles, they are already making millions of articles available for free (albeit with embargoes that generally are 12 months, but sometimes as long as 24).
Posted by Katie Newman at February 20, 2007 6:10 PM