|
elsevier.com
Major science journal publishers such as Elsevier are taking stronger measures to quash open access to scientific papers. |
On Jan. 24,
Nature reported that a group of major science journal publishers has hired the notoriously aggressive PR agent
Eric Dezenhall to combat the "free information" movement (also called the "open access" movement).
Kevin McCauley, an editor at
O'Dwyer's PR Report, reportedly dubbed Dezenhall the "pit bull of public relations."
Open Access News explains that the movement's goals include: "Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature on the Internet, and making it available free of charge and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions." Some science journal publishers, which rely on often-hefty subscription fees, worry that open access to scientific papers via public databases would threaten their existence.
Nature said that Dezenhall advised the science publishers to "focus on simple messages, such as 'Public access equals government censorship.' He hinted that the publishers should attempt to equate traditional publishing models with peer review, and 'paint a picture of what the world would look like without peer-reviewed articles.'"
Dezenhall also recommended joining forces with unlikely allies such as the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute -- which, in addition to being a vocal critic of mainstream climate change science, reportedly opposes government-mandated science information projects such as PubMed Central.
Personally, I can understand the journal publishers wanting to protect their business. However, I think it's futile as well as harmful to block open access to scientific information. Science journals do add value to raw scientific information via peer review, fostering high-quality debate and analysis, and other processes. I think if they can focus on those value-adds, they can preserve and even enhance their business -- without locking down access to scientific information.
It's bad enough that so much science already is not being shared due to constraints imposed by corporate or institutional funders, out of competitive concerns. Sharing results is a fundamental aspect of the scientific process -- and smart journals can find a way to benefit from that without limiting access to information. Good science publishing shouldn't be at odds with good science.
(Thanks to Justin Crawford for the tip.)
UPDATE JAN. 28: The American Association of Publishers has issued this response to the Nature article.
