Open Access News

News from the open access movement

Monday, January 29, 2007

More comments on the AAP PR campaign

Here's another set of blogger comments on the AAP's new PR campaign against OA.  (This is the fourth set; also see the first, second, and third.)

From Samuel Bradley at Cognition:

...That's right. Hire an attack dog to tackle those radicals suggesting that science -- of all things -- should be about ideas rather than profits....

From Graeme at Graeme's blog:

...The journal publishers are arguing for a rather curious type of private sector involvement. They want governments to fund the creation of the research, but for the finished product to be then circulated only in ways that allows them to make a profit....The obvious problem with the traditional publishers’ position is that they want public funding to continue. They just want to make sure that they can make a huge profit from circulating it....

From Heather Morrison at Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics:

If the Association of American Publishers is trying to shake off a reputation of disinformation - they'll have to try harder...[A] statement from the AAP scholarly publishing division says:  "Private sector non-profit and commercial publishers serve researchers and scientists by managing and funding the peer review process...."  This is nonsense! Publishers do not fund the peer review process. First, peer review is not funded at all, but rather done on a voluntary basis.  Second, profitable publishers (there are both commercial and not-for-profit publishers who fit this description) do not fund the coordination of peer review; rather, they reap profits from the service they provide. In a financial sense, they do not give; they take.

From Matthew Nisbet at Framing Science:

Things just went from bad to terrible for the image of the Association of American Publishers....

From Dorothea Salo at Caveat Lector:

...[From the AAP:]  It’s unfortunate that reporters picked up on some early proposals that were not adopted and, regrettably, the Nature article has misrepresented what’s really going on. 

[Translation:]  We really, really regret having been caught red-handed. We can’t possibly explain, because there isn’t actually an honest explanation that doesn’t make us look worse.... 

[From the AAP:]  We and many others have legitimate concerns that government mandated open access could have unintended consequences for the scientific community – and anyone who relies on sound science. 

[Translation:]  We’re legitimately concerned that our profit margins will evaporate....