Now on ScienceBlogs: Attack of the pregnant cannibal fathers

Seed Media Group

Collective Imagination

Search

Profile

profilepic9-09a.jpg

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. As well as writing this blog, I am also the Online Discussion Expert for PLoS. This is a personal blog and opinions within it in no way reflect the policies of PLoS. You can contact me at: Coturnix@gmail.com


Buy the 2008 Science Blogging Anthology:

The Open Laboratory

Buy the 2007 Science Blogging Anthology:

The Open Laboratory

Buy the 2006 Science Blogging Anthology:

The Open Laboratory

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Find me on...


Homepage

FriendFeed

Twitter

Facebook

Nature Network

YouTube

Flickr

Dopplr

Stumbleupon

LinkedIn

Make Me Happy

Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!

Add Scienceblogs to your Technorati Favorites!

Make Me Solvent

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

A Blog Around The Clock swag store

I Support

Carrboro Coworking

Project Exploration

Project Exploration

Bloggie Stuff

Creative Commons License
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

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.

Share this: Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/51086

Comments

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

Post a Comment

(Email is required for authentication purposes only. On some blogs, comments are moderated for spam, so your comment may not appear immediately.)





ScienceBlogs

Search ScienceBlogs:

Go to:

Advertisement
Enter to win a free copy of The Monty Hall Problem
Visit the Collective Imagination blog
Advertisement
Collective Imagination

© 2006-2009 Seed Media Group LLC. ScienceBlogs is a registered trademark of Seed Media Group. All rights reserved.

Sites by Seed Media Group: Seed Media Group | ScienceBlogs | SEEDMAGAZINE.COM