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
More like this
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.
Jim Giles, who broke the story of how for-profit publishers had hired Eric Dezenhall to run a PR campaign against Open Access, has a post at the New Scientist Science News blog, where he posts a copy of Dezenhall's proposal. It always nice to see more of the inner workings of the astroturf…
PRISM (or the Partnership for Research Integrity in Science and Medicine) is a lobby against Open Access (OA) put together by the The Association of American Publishers (or AAP). Most Science Publishers are members of AAP, but since the unveiling of PRISM (and of their website) now many publishers…
When three separate people send you an article in Nature it gets your attention. Since I have a paid subscription to Nature, my attention was ready to be grabbed anyway, but I hadn't yet read this story so a tip of the hat to my informants. I also have paid personal subscriptions to Science and a…
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]