Question Description
Should taxpayers pay to read the results of public funded research or do they have the right to those. This issue is the center of hotly contested debate in the House of Representatives as a part of the Research Works Act. The Research Works Act would forbid the National Institute of Health to require, as it now does, that its grantees provide copies of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece, making citizens pay for research already funded by them.Publishers of journals such as Cell, Science, and The New England Journal of Medicine, who are backing the bill, argue that they add value to the finished product and that requiring them to provide free access to journal articles within a year of publication denies them their fair compensation and makes it difficult for them to generate profits comparable to the profits in the industry. Furthermore they claim that while the research may be publically funded, the journals are not, claiming that they add significant value in the peer review process that makes the published articles worthwhile.But in fact, these journals receive billions of dollars in subscription payments, a good portion of their revenue today that is derived largely from public funds. Moreover, even the peer review process, which the journals claim is their primary value add, is funded by public funds. The researchers who volunteer their time to review their peers’ work come primarily from universities and research organizations that are funded by taxpayers’ dollars.Rather than rolling back public access, Congress should move to enshrine a simple principle in United States law: if taxpayers paid for it, they own it. This is already the case for scientific papers published by researchers at the N.I.H. campus in Bethesda, Md., whose work has been explicitly excluded from copyright protection since 1976 because it was funded by public. It would be easy to extend this coverage to all works funded by the federal government.The primary purpose of the passage is toa)Demonstrate how the publishing industry is misusing the time of congress for their own financial benefit.b)Illustrate a moral dilemma facing the House of Representatives.c)Evaluate the pros and cons of passing the Research Works Act.d)Discuss and disprove the claims put forth by the backers of Research Works Act.e)Advocate all publically funded research to be made open source.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Should taxpayers pay to read the results of public funded research or do they have the right to those. This issue is the center of hotly contested debate in the House of Representatives as a part of the Research Works Act. The Research Works Act would forbid the National Institute of Health to require, as it now does, that its grantees provide copies of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece, making citizens pay for research already funded by them.Publishers of journals such as Cell, Science, and The New England Journal of Medicine, who are backing the bill, argue that they add value to the finished product and that requiring them to provide free access to journal articles within a year of publication denies them their fair compensation and makes it difficult for them to generate profits comparable to the profits in the industry. Furthermore they claim that while the research may be publically funded, the journals are not, claiming that they add significant value in the peer review process that makes the published articles worthwhile.But in fact, these journals receive billions of dollars in subscription payments, a good portion of their revenue today that is derived largely from public funds. Moreover, even the peer review process, which the journals claim is their primary value add, is funded by public funds. The researchers who volunteer their time to review their peers’ work come primarily from universities and research organizations that are funded by taxpayers’ dollars.Rather than rolling back public access, Congress should move to enshrine a simple principle in United States law: if taxpayers paid for it, they own it. This is already the case for scientific papers published by researchers at the N.I.H. campus in Bethesda, Md., whose work has been explicitly excluded from copyright protection since 1976 because it was funded by public. It would be easy to extend this coverage to all works funded by the federal government.The primary purpose of the passage is toa)Demonstrate how the publishing industry is misusing the time of congress for their own financial benefit.b)Illustrate a moral dilemma facing the House of Representatives.c)Evaluate the pros and cons of passing the Research Works Act.d)Discuss and disprove the claims put forth by the backers of Research Works Act.e)Advocate all publically funded research to be made open source.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Should taxpayers pay to read the results of public funded research or do they have the right to those. This issue is the center of hotly contested debate in the House of Representatives as a part of the Research Works Act. The Research Works Act would forbid the National Institute of Health to require, as it now does, that its grantees provide copies of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece, making citizens pay for research already funded by them.Publishers of journals such as Cell, Science, and The New England Journal of Medicine, who are backing the bill, argue that they add value to the finished product and that requiring them to provide free access to journal articles within a year of publication denies them their fair compensation and makes it difficult for them to generate profits comparable to the profits in the industry. Furthermore they claim that while the research may be publically funded, the journals are not, claiming that they add significant value in the peer review process that makes the published articles worthwhile.But in fact, these journals receive billions of dollars in subscription payments, a good portion of their revenue today that is derived largely from public funds. Moreover, even the peer review process, which the journals claim is their primary value add, is funded by public funds. The researchers who volunteer their time to review their peers’ work come primarily from universities and research organizations that are funded by taxpayers’ dollars.Rather than rolling back public access, Congress should move to enshrine a simple principle in United States law: if taxpayers paid for it, they own it. This is already the case for scientific papers published by researchers at the N.I.H. campus in Bethesda, Md., whose work has been explicitly excluded from copyright protection since 1976 because it was funded by public. It would be easy to extend this coverage to all works funded by the federal government.The primary purpose of the passage is toa)Demonstrate how the publishing industry is misusing the time of congress for their own financial benefit.b)Illustrate a moral dilemma facing the House of Representatives.c)Evaluate the pros and cons of passing the Research Works Act.d)Discuss and disprove the claims put forth by the backers of Research Works Act.e)Advocate all publically funded research to be made open source.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Should taxpayers pay to read the results of public funded research or do they have the right to those. This issue is the center of hotly contested debate in the House of Representatives as a part of the Research Works Act. The Research Works Act would forbid the National Institute of Health to require, as it now does, that its grantees provide copies of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece, making citizens pay for research already funded by them.Publishers of journals such as Cell, Science, and The New England Journal of Medicine, who are backing the bill, argue that they add value to the finished product and that requiring them to provide free access to journal articles within a year of publication denies them their fair compensation and makes it difficult for them to generate profits comparable to the profits in the industry. Furthermore they claim that while the research may be publically funded, the journals are not, claiming that they add significant value in the peer review process that makes the published articles worthwhile.But in fact, these journals receive billions of dollars in subscription payments, a good portion of their revenue today that is derived largely from public funds. Moreover, even the peer review process, which the journals claim is their primary value add, is funded by public funds. The researchers who volunteer their time to review their peers’ work come primarily from universities and research organizations that are funded by taxpayers’ dollars.Rather than rolling back public access, Congress should move to enshrine a simple principle in United States law: if taxpayers paid for it, they own it. This is already the case for scientific papers published by researchers at the N.I.H. campus in Bethesda, Md., whose work has been explicitly excluded from copyright protection since 1976 because it was funded by public. It would be easy to extend this coverage to all works funded by the federal government.The primary purpose of the passage is toa)Demonstrate how the publishing industry is misusing the time of congress for their own financial benefit.b)Illustrate a moral dilemma facing the House of Representatives.c)Evaluate the pros and cons of passing the Research Works Act.d)Discuss and disprove the claims put forth by the backers of Research Works Act.e)Advocate all publically funded research to be made open source.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Should taxpayers pay to read the results of public funded research or do they have the right to those. This issue is the center of hotly contested debate in the House of Representatives as a part of the Research Works Act. The Research Works Act would forbid the National Institute of Health to require, as it now does, that its grantees provide copies of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece, making citizens pay for research already funded by them.Publishers of journals such as Cell, Science, and The New England Journal of Medicine, who are backing the bill, argue that they add value to the finished product and that requiring them to provide free access to journal articles within a year of publication denies them their fair compensation and makes it difficult for them to generate profits comparable to the profits in the industry. Furthermore they claim that while the research may be publically funded, the journals are not, claiming that they add significant value in the peer review process that makes the published articles worthwhile.But in fact, these journals receive billions of dollars in subscription payments, a good portion of their revenue today that is derived largely from public funds. Moreover, even the peer review process, which the journals claim is their primary value add, is funded by public funds. The researchers who volunteer their time to review their peers’ work come primarily from universities and research organizations that are funded by taxpayers’ dollars.Rather than rolling back public access, Congress should move to enshrine a simple principle in United States law: if taxpayers paid for it, they own it. This is already the case for scientific papers published by researchers at the N.I.H. campus in Bethesda, Md., whose work has been explicitly excluded from copyright protection since 1976 because it was funded by public. It would be easy to extend this coverage to all works funded by the federal government.The primary purpose of the passage is toa)Demonstrate how the publishing industry is misusing the time of congress for their own financial benefit.b)Illustrate a moral dilemma facing the House of Representatives.c)Evaluate the pros and cons of passing the Research Works Act.d)Discuss and disprove the claims put forth by the backers of Research Works Act.e)Advocate all publically funded research to be made open source.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Should taxpayers pay to read the results of public funded research or do they have the right to those. This issue is the center of hotly contested debate in the House of Representatives as a part of the Research Works Act. The Research Works Act would forbid the National Institute of Health to require, as it now does, that its grantees provide copies of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece, making citizens pay for research already funded by them.Publishers of journals such as Cell, Science, and The New England Journal of Medicine, who are backing the bill, argue that they add value to the finished product and that requiring them to provide free access to journal articles within a year of publication denies them their fair compensation and makes it difficult for them to generate profits comparable to the profits in the industry. Furthermore they claim that while the research may be publically funded, the journals are not, claiming that they add significant value in the peer review process that makes the published articles worthwhile.But in fact, these journals receive billions of dollars in subscription payments, a good portion of their revenue today that is derived largely from public funds. Moreover, even the peer review process, which the journals claim is their primary value add, is funded by public funds. The researchers who volunteer their time to review their peers’ work come primarily from universities and research organizations that are funded by taxpayers’ dollars.Rather than rolling back public access, Congress should move to enshrine a simple principle in United States law: if taxpayers paid for it, they own it. This is already the case for scientific papers published by researchers at the N.I.H. campus in Bethesda, Md., whose work has been explicitly excluded from copyright protection since 1976 because it was funded by public. It would be easy to extend this coverage to all works funded by the federal government.The primary purpose of the passage is toa)Demonstrate how the publishing industry is misusing the time of congress for their own financial benefit.b)Illustrate a moral dilemma facing the House of Representatives.c)Evaluate the pros and cons of passing the Research Works Act.d)Discuss and disprove the claims put forth by the backers of Research Works Act.e)Advocate all publically funded research to be made open source.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Should taxpayers pay to read the results of public funded research or do they have the right to those. This issue is the center of hotly contested debate in the House of Representatives as a part of the Research Works Act. The Research Works Act would forbid the National Institute of Health to require, as it now does, that its grantees provide copies of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece, making citizens pay for research already funded by them.Publishers of journals such as Cell, Science, and The New England Journal of Medicine, who are backing the bill, argue that they add value to the finished product and that requiring them to provide free access to journal articles within a year of publication denies them their fair compensation and makes it difficult for them to generate profits comparable to the profits in the industry. Furthermore they claim that while the research may be publically funded, the journals are not, claiming that they add significant value in the peer review process that makes the published articles worthwhile.But in fact, these journals receive billions of dollars in subscription payments, a good portion of their revenue today that is derived largely from public funds. Moreover, even the peer review process, which the journals claim is their primary value add, is funded by public funds. The researchers who volunteer their time to review their peers’ work come primarily from universities and research organizations that are funded by taxpayers’ dollars.Rather than rolling back public access, Congress should move to enshrine a simple principle in United States law: if taxpayers paid for it, they own it. This is already the case for scientific papers published by researchers at the N.I.H. campus in Bethesda, Md., whose work has been explicitly excluded from copyright protection since 1976 because it was funded by public. It would be easy to extend this coverage to all works funded by the federal government.The primary purpose of the passage is toa)Demonstrate how the publishing industry is misusing the time of congress for their own financial benefit.b)Illustrate a moral dilemma facing the House of Representatives.c)Evaluate the pros and cons of passing the Research Works Act.d)Discuss and disprove the claims put forth by the backers of Research Works Act.e)Advocate all publically funded research to be made open source.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Should taxpayers pay to read the results of public funded research or do they have the right to those. This issue is the center of hotly contested debate in the House of Representatives as a part of the Research Works Act. The Research Works Act would forbid the National Institute of Health to require, as it now does, that its grantees provide copies of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece, making citizens pay for research already funded by them.Publishers of journals such as Cell, Science, and The New England Journal of Medicine, who are backing the bill, argue that they add value to the finished product and that requiring them to provide free access to journal articles within a year of publication denies them their fair compensation and makes it difficult for them to generate profits comparable to the profits in the industry. Furthermore they claim that while the research may be publically funded, the journals are not, claiming that they add significant value in the peer review process that makes the published articles worthwhile.But in fact, these journals receive billions of dollars in subscription payments, a good portion of their revenue today that is derived largely from public funds. Moreover, even the peer review process, which the journals claim is their primary value add, is funded by public funds. The researchers who volunteer their time to review their peers’ work come primarily from universities and research organizations that are funded by taxpayers’ dollars.Rather than rolling back public access, Congress should move to enshrine a simple principle in United States law: if taxpayers paid for it, they own it. This is already the case for scientific papers published by researchers at the N.I.H. campus in Bethesda, Md., whose work has been explicitly excluded from copyright protection since 1976 because it was funded by public. It would be easy to extend this coverage to all works funded by the federal government.The primary purpose of the passage is toa)Demonstrate how the publishing industry is misusing the time of congress for their own financial benefit.b)Illustrate a moral dilemma facing the House of Representatives.c)Evaluate the pros and cons of passing the Research Works Act.d)Discuss and disprove the claims put forth by the backers of Research Works Act.e)Advocate all publically funded research to be made open source.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Should taxpayers pay to read the results of public funded research or do they have the right to those. This issue is the center of hotly contested debate in the House of Representatives as a part of the Research Works Act. The Research Works Act would forbid the National Institute of Health to require, as it now does, that its grantees provide copies of the papers they publish in peer-reviewed journals to the library. If the bill passes, to read the results of federally funded research, most Americans would have to buy access to individual articles at a cost of $15 or $30 apiece, making citizens pay for research already funded by them.Publishers of journals such as Cell, Science, and The New England Journal of Medicine, who are backing the bill, argue that they add value to the finished product and that requiring them to provide free access to journal articles within a year of publication denies them their fair compensation and makes it difficult for them to generate profits comparable to the profits in the industry. Furthermore they claim that while the research may be publically funded, the journals are not, claiming that they add significant value in the peer review process that makes the published articles worthwhile.But in fact, these journals receive billions of dollars in subscription payments, a good portion of their revenue today that is derived largely from public funds. Moreover, even the peer review process, which the journals claim is their primary value add, is funded by public funds. The researchers who volunteer their time to review their peers’ work come primarily from universities and research organizations that are funded by taxpayers’ dollars.Rather than rolling back public access, Congress should move to enshrine a simple principle in United States law: if taxpayers paid for it, they own it. This is already the case for scientific papers published by researchers at the N.I.H. campus in Bethesda, Md., whose work has been explicitly excluded from copyright protection since 1976 because it was funded by public. It would be easy to extend this coverage to all works funded by the federal government.The primary purpose of the passage is toa)Demonstrate how the publishing industry is misusing the time of congress for their own financial benefit.b)Illustrate a moral dilemma facing the House of Representatives.c)Evaluate the pros and cons of passing the Research Works Act.d)Discuss and disprove the claims put forth by the backers of Research Works Act.e)Advocate all publically funded research to be made open source.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.