Open Access News

News from the open access movement

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Two more comments on the AAP

Here are a couple more blogger comments on the AAP's new PR campaign against OA

From Stephen Downes at OLDaily:

You just have to wonder what sort of ethical standard governs the publishing industry, if any. As reported in Nature, and carried elsewhere, Brian Crawford, of the American Chemical Society, following the advice of a "pit bull public relations specialist", said that "he believes that when a government agency insists the results of its publicly funded research be made public, it's engaging in censorship." Huh? The publishers were also advised to "attempt to equate traditional publishing models with peer review." What about the fact that these claims are transparently false? Explains the public relations specialist, Eric Dezenhall, "if the other side is on the defensive, it doesn't matter if they can discredit your statements....Yes, a pox on the intellectuals and their fact-based agenda!

From Richard Jones at The Chronicles of Richard:

...[This issue has] already been pretty heavily commented, so I wasn't going to add anything, but I've not yet seen the words of warning that immediately sprung to my mind when I read about this. Most commentary has been of the "they know they're backed into the corner, and they're fooling nobody" line. While I agree that those of us on the other side of the fence are not fooled by this, it is not us that they are concerned with....Whether we know or not that this is just FUD is irrelevant - it is the people who ultimately make the decisions that are the targets of a campaign like this, and those people are our practicing academics, and, to a degree, members of the public....How does a loose community (by necessity) such as the Open Access community combat a well directed organisation which is seriously motivated to see itself prevail? If you know the answer to that, then it won't just be this dispute which we can solve.