- "undermines the peer review process." Yes that's right. If an article is freely available for all to read, that must mean that peer review has been compromised. Nevermind that openness in other areas (e.g., politics, law, etc) is well established to promote critical review (anyone heard of freedom of the press). But apparently in science, openness is bad.
- "opens the door to scientific censorship". Yup. Making publications freely available apparently means that you will stifle communication. Again, the logic here is completely silly - how on earth is openness connected to censorship?
- "undermining the reasonable protections of copyright holders." Yup, the publishers of scientific articles, who do not deserve the copyright to articles in the first place, are now saying that because they have stolen the copyright from many scientists, now we should defend them because they have the copyright. Kind of like saying that someone who steals some money should not give it back because of finders keepers rules.
For more on Prism see
Isn't it odd how much of the FUD directed against Open Access is pretty much identical to the complaints of Microsoft and other against Open Source?ReplyDelete
Good catch, JE - PRISM is something we're all too familiar with here in Washington (as JE knows all too well, having grown up here): a lobbying group. Like many lobbying groups, their message is deceptive - they dress up their statement of purpose with a bunch of principles that no one objects to, but when you get to the bottom of the list you find out what they really want: protection for publishers, which is who they are. Suber's comments point out that they are following "PR consultant Eric Dezenhall, who advised the AAP “to equate traditional publishing models with peer review.”ReplyDelete
There was quite a bit of controversy when it came out that AAP had hired Dezenhall, who is known for his deceptive and often hardball tactics. Even Nature reported on this with the headline "PR's 'pit bull' takes on open access" (see http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070122/full/445347a.html).
So we're seeing some of the first results of the PR effort by publishers to attack open access - by pretending that they are "protecting" peer review and scientific freedom.
Let's make sure we don't let them get away with it.
I should have remembered Dezenhall's connection as I wrote about this a while ago when Nature ran that articleReplyDelete
I analogize this to the Shotgun Wedding industry attacking prostitution, free love, and elopement.ReplyDelete
-- Prof. Jonathan Vos Post
I visited the PRISM web site and I have to say that it made me very angry, less because of the open access issue than because they are injecting so much venom into the debate.ReplyDelete
I ended up blogging on this myself, writing in part:
"What should we do? Scientific publishers cannot survive without scientists. Scientists can defend research integrity by thinking twice before entrusting their work to any AAP publisher, or before agreeing to serve as a scientific editor or reviewer for an AAP publisher. Scientists can make sure that their professional organizations do not support the AAP in any way."
For Steve's post go here . It is worth reading.ReplyDelete
Interesting to note that when the PRISM site launched it failed to follow its own guidelines about respecting rights of authorship and infringed all homepage images from Getty Images.ReplyDelete
After the blogosphere attacked the images were paid for, however.
Anyone know if Nature belongs to PRISM...? seems odd that they would be reporting on it if they were a member.ReplyDelete
Nice observation, thanks. I don’t visit your blog every day, but when IReplyDelete
visit your blog I enjoy browsing through your old posts and try to catch up
what I have missed since my last visit.
Many institutions limit access to their online information. Making this information available will be an asset to all.ReplyDelete