Open Access News

News from the open access movement

Friday, August 31, 2007

More on PRISM

Here are a few more recent comments on PRISM.

From Andrew Leonard at Salon:

How the World Works [Leonard’s column at Salon] has been hard on the commercial science publishers for their ham-handed efforts to equate public access to government-funded research with "censorship." So it's only fair to applaud a publisher who thinks that the stance of the American Association of Publishers (AAP) is just as ridiculous as we do.  [Leonard then reprints the public statement from Rockefeller University Press, dissociating iself from PRISM.] 

From Jonathan Eisen at The Tree of Life:

...I think academics and the public need to fight back against this attempt to mislead the public about the issues surrounding Open Access publishing. And one way to fight back is to recommend that the members of AAP drop out or request termination of the PRISM effort. So here is a list (see below for the full list) with links of the members of AAP. If you are involved or have connections to any of these groups, consider writing or calling them and suggesting they reconsider involvement in AAP. Look, for example at all the University presses. If they do not back out of PRISM we should consider launching a boycott of AAP members....

From Steve Mount at On Genes:

...The Association of American Publishers made a mistake by seeking to distort this debate. The AAP web site claims that the organization seeks “To promote intellectual freedom and to oppose all forms of censorship, at home and abroad.” Publishing is inherently about providing information, and it is not a field that naturally attracts people who prefer to win the debate than to find the truth. When the AAP hired this pit bull they were working against their own nature. They goofed. Like Michael Vick, they are free to change their ways. The pit bull can then go work for another client, one who has less to lose by offending those who care about integrity.

Finally, Andrew Walkingshaw has a point-by-point rebuttal to the PRISM page of Myth vs. Fact.