Jim Giles, New Scientist contributor, got the memo and wrote a blog post and an article about it. You can read the actual memo here (pdf) to see what Dezenhall advised the dinosaur publishers to do to stave off the inevitable move to Open Access. So now you can see where PRISM comes from.
Search this blog
Profile
I am the Online Community Manager at PLoS ONE. My scientific specialty is chronobiology (circadian rhythms and photoperiodism), with additional interests in comparative physiology, animal behavior and evolution. I am not an MD so I cannot diagnose and treat your sleep problems. This is a personal blog and opinions within in no way reflect the policies of PLoS ONE. You can contact me at: Coturnix@gmail.com
Join us at ScienceOnline'09
Submit your entries to OpenLab08
Buy the 2007 Science Blogging Anthology:
Buy the 2006 Science Blogging Anthology:
Recent Posts
- Virtual journey with Darwin
- My picks from ScienceDaily
- Clock Quotes
- New and Exciting in PLoS this week
- Good Bye, Yugo
- Nature + good photographer = Art
- It happens, sometimes....
- '....the potential future of an open, transparent peer review process. ...'
- ScienceOnline'09 - important information for international participants
- National Day of Listening
Recent Comments
- Eva on ScienceOnline'09 - important information for international participants
- janszimre on Spring Forward, Fall Back - should you watch out tomorrow morning?
- oddjob on Republicans? Who's that?
- sbh on Clock Quotes
- mimi on Nature + good photographer = Art
- QrazyQat on '....the potential future of an open, transparent peer review process. ...'
- Amiya Sarkar on '....the potential future of an open, transparent peer review process. ...'
- Glendon Mellow on Nature + good photographer = Art
- Art on On their way to 40 years in the desert....
- Rhea Miller on National Day of Listening
Archives
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
Blogroll
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
My Old Stuff
Make Me Happy
Add Scienceblogs to your Technorati Favorites!
Make Me Solvent
I Support
Bloggie Stuff
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
« Tennessee bans lethal injection | Main | Facebook, after weeks of pressure, still bans breastfeeding photos! »
Eric Dezenhall PR memo to publishers leaked
Category: Open Science
Posted on: September 20, 2007 9:49 AM, by Coturnix
Find more posts in: 
Education & Careers
Politics
Comments
I made a text version of the PDF, if anybody would prefer that, available here.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 20, 2007 4:09 PM
Coturnix on Dezenhall (01/25/07): Big Science Publishers "opted to go all mean and nasty. Once they finally lose, they'll lose for good and it will not be pretty... they will use the trickery with language in their efforts to slander the Open Source and Open Science organizations and online journals."
Dezenhall Memo: "There are no clear villains. Government is looking to give taxpayers free access to the research that they fund and publishers are trying to protect their business and the integrity of the research they publish."
That doesn't sound mean and nasty. The tactics listed in the memo include Rhetorical Campaign Points, Opposition Analysis, Targeted Advertising. No where do I see slander suggested as a strategy. The language of the memo is undeniably less inflammatory than the blog of the PLoS-One Online Community Manager.
I think that the worst that can be said of the memo is that Dezenhall appears on board with Nisbet's ideas on framing.
Framing, or as you might call it: "trickery with language."
Posted by: Herb West | September 20, 2007 11:53 PM
Lies and deception are, by definition, nasty. You know who I work for. Who are you respresenting?
Posted by: Coturnix | September 21, 2007 12:10 AM
Herb,
You are the only one misrepresenting the truth here. As you know the true statement you cited was actually listed under "challenges" to the coalition. As in, the reality is that open publishing is good, and people know it, this is the challenge the publishers overcome.
As the truth is the identified challenge, naturally the rest of the memo, if you read it, describes how misinformation can be used to obscure the issue and forward the coalition's agenda.
Consider, for example, this false statement under "opportunities".
"Publishers invest considerable resources through the peer review process to ensure that only the best articles are published in their journals."
As we all know, it is scientists who spend the time reviewing papers during the peer review process and they do this free of charge. Thus proving expensive journal subscriptions are an unnecessary component of the peer review process.
Posted by: bayman | September 21, 2007 4:43 PM
What this article misses is the importance of the American Chemical Society in promoting the misinformation on Open Access.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Chemical_Society
Posted by: thom | November 11, 2007 10:44 PM