Open Access News

Jim Giles broke the story of the AAP hiring of Eric Dezenhall in Nature for January 24, 2007.  Now Giles is telling more of the story.

In a post today at NewScientist's Short Sharp Science blog, Giles writes:

The link between the AAP and Dezenhall must have irked someone linked to one of the publishers, because emails connecting the two were leaked to me (the sender did not give a name). Dezenhall's strategy includes linking open access with government censorship and junk science – ideas that to me seem quite bizarre and misleading. Last month, however, the AAP launched a lobby group called the Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine (PRISM), which uses many of the arguments that Dezenhall suggested.

I've written a comment article about this in New Scientist this week, and you can read the leaked proposal from Dezenhall here (pdf). Let us know what you think of the AAP's strategy, or about open access in general.

His story in NewScientist is TA and only the first two paragraphs are free online:

An unexpected package arrived on my desk earlier this year. The sender did not give a name, and the return address was false. Inside were copies of emails between senior staff at major scientific publishing houses. They were discussing a surprising topic: plans to hire Eric Dezenhall, a public relations guru who has organised attacks on environmental groups, represented an Enron chief, and authored the book Nail 'Em! Confronting high-profile attacks on celebrities and businesses. (See our related blog, plus the leaked proposal from Eric Dezenhall here)

Leaked emails and controversial characters like Dezenhall are not normally associated with the staid world of academic journals, but the big publishers are getting a little spooked. Over the past decade, researchers have started to demand that scientific results be set free. The majority of research is publicly funded and is reviewed, free of charge, by public-sector scientists....

The leaked two-page Dezenhall proposal to the AAP is apparently unabridged.  But it's a scanned image and I don't have time rekey it.  However I recommend it for showing more than we've seen to date on (1) the strengths of the OA movement that worry the publishing lobby (called "the coalition" here, perhaps in anticipation of PRISM) and (2) the coalition strategies and tactics for persuading policy-makers to defeat OA initiatives.

Update.  I just gained access to the full text of Jim Giles story in NewScientist.  Here are some more excerpts:

...The majority of research is publicly funded and is  reviewed, free of charge, by public-sector scientists. But it is then  placed in journals where it is available only to those who pay for a  subscription or belong to a library that has one. Many academics want  this system replaced with one that ensures access for all.

This is not a message that all publishers want to hear. The profits  from many academic journals rest entirely on subscription fees; if  articles are available for free, researchers may decide they need not  bother signing up. Publishing houses have ploughed millions of  dollars into the infrastructure needed to keep this business going  online. If everyone gets to expect free access, that investment will  look misguided. The publishers hired Dezenhall because they wanted a  PR campaign to counter these threats.

It's a shame they cannot see the bigger picture. Restricting access  to journals slows down the work of everyone involved in science, not  just researchers but also policy-makers, journalists and campaigners.  For scientists in poorer nations, often the places where the benefits  of research are most needed, access can be non-existent. Subscription barriers also hamper the integration of databases and research  papers, which many see as the future of scientific publishing.

These benefits are not incompatible with the survival of commercial  publishers. What is needed is a change of business model, not a  revolution....

The emails I received show that Dezenhall advised the AAP to  focus on what seem to me to be emotive and highly misleading  messages. Publishers were told to equate traditional journals with  peer review, even though open-access publications operate peer review  in exactly the same way. US government plans to boost access to  papers, which include making all publicly funded health research  available via a dedicated archive, were to be described as  "censorship" and "copyright theft", though it is hard to see what  possible basis these accusations can have....

Dezenhall's campaign launched last month. The AAP has formed a lobby  group, the Partnership for Research Integrity in Science and Medicine  (PRISM), and most of what it says is in line with what Dezenhall  suggested. To anyone who has followed the debate on open access, the  messages look pathetic, and one AAP member - The Rockefeller  University Press - quickly said that it "strongly disagreed" with  what the association has done.

Those who would like to see open access win out should think twice  before dismissing PRISM. Its messages are designed not to win an  intellectual debate but to sway people who know little about what  open access means: the US senators who will soon vote on the archive  plans....

Long-term, however, PRISM looks like a desperate move. No successful  company wants to tear up its business model and start again, but  change is inevitable. Open-access journals are springing up faster  than ever (43 in the last month), and the better-established ones are  already profitable. In the last eight years, 12 whole editorial  boards have quit traditional journals in protest at high prices, and  launched rival open-access publications. The AAP's lobbying may delay  things, but the open-access movement has a momentum that not even  Dezenhall can reverse.

Update.  Blake Stacey has rekeyed original two-page proposal that Eric Dezenhall presented to the AAP.  Excerpt:

...It’s hard to fight an adversary that manages to be both elusive and in possession of a better message: Free information....

There are no clear villains. Government is looking to give taxpayers free access to the research that they fund and publishers are trying to protect their business and the integrity of the research they publish. The free internet movement is strong and getting stronger....

Strategies

• Supplement the Coalition’s lobbying efforts with communications “air cover”
• Simplify the Coalition’s arguments into easily digestible concepts (e.g., censorship)....

Develop simple messages (e.g., Public access equals government censorship; Scientific journals preserve the quality/pedigree of science; government seeking to nationalize science and be a publisher) for use by Coalition members....

Paint a picture of what the world would look like without peer reviewed articles....

Inventory the Coalition’s adversaries, their arguments and weaknesses prior to launching communications....

Estimated Budget.  $300,000 - $500,000 for a six month program.