Relating to a study on the feasibility of requiring certain researchers to make research papers available to the public.
If enacted, SB803 would require a comprehensive study conducted by a designated board in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including institutions of higher education and publishing companies. The study is aimed at assessing the logistics of implementing such a mandate, including necessary administrative provisions, compliance with federal laws, and potential challenges in the submission timeline. The findings and recommendations from this study are to be reported to the legislature by December 1, 2018, influencing future laws or regulations around academic publishing and public access.
SB803, introduced by Senator Seliger, focuses on evaluating the feasibility of mandating that researchers who receive state or federal funds make their published research papers accessible to the public. The bill recognizes the importance of public access to research, particularly when the research is funded by taxpayer money, thereby enhancing accountability and transparency within higher education institutions. It seeks to identify methods for effective dissemination of research findings to ensure wide public availability and understanding of funded research efforts.
The overall sentiment surrounding SB803 appears to be supportive among advocates for open access and public transparency in research. Proponents argue that making research publicly accessible aligns with the ethical obligation of researchers to share knowledge generated from public funding. Conversely, there might be concerns from researchers and publishers regarding additional administrative burdens and copyright issues, which could affect their willingness to participate in such a system.
While SB803 aims to streamline access to research, it may face opposition from stakeholders who fear that mandatory public access might infringe on intellectual property rights or diminish the revenue of academic publishers. Notably, the bill does not stipulate immediate changes in policy, but rather lays the groundwork for a future framework based on the feasibility study's outcomes. This could involve weighing the benefits of transparency against the implications for academic freedom and publishing models.