One lobbyist's recommendations on how academic publishers should counter the open access movement. Do I need to write anything? Just read it here.
Also see
- Eric Dezenhall PR memo to publishers leaked (Coturnix)
- Publishers prepare for war over open access (Jim Giles, the New Scientist)
And previously:
- PRISM - a new lobby against open access
- The latest reactions to PRISM
- Log in to post comments
That memo is just plain silly. A third grader could have misunderstood the issue equally well and have come up with the same ridiculous plan (probably could have done better). I've got a cousin about that age and I'm gonna see her in a few weeks, I'll see what she thinks and report back. When will the OA / peer review strawman die?
Theodore, the memo may be silly but you have to admit that more thought went into this memo than into the Scientific Ethics Code.
"Public access = government censorship".
I really don't understand that statement at all. Can somebody explain the reasoning to me? <-- that is a rhetorical question, btw.
Also, I agree with Theodore - that memo is all jargon and nothing concrete. I think I could read it four or five times and come to an equal number of different conclusions as to what it's trying to say. Caveat - background information that might put it into context is lacking.
[visiting via Labrats, blogs.usyd.edu.au/labrats]