Open-Access Debate: Wiley's View

While researching a story about open access, I've been in touch with the publishing firms that reportedly hired a p.r. firm to help them create a message in opposition to pending legislation regarding open access.

A spokeswoman for Wiley declined to comment and referred me to a letter to the editor that publishers spokesperson Brian Crawford (see more about him in a previous post) sent to Nature after it broke the story of the hiring of the publicists:

To the Editor:

The premise of the Jan.
24 article by Jim Giles raises disturbing questions, and was extremelymisleading by its omissions and errors. In an attempt to portray in anegative manner the intentions of our Association (of which Nature’sparent firm is itself a member, a fact Mr. Giles chose not to report),
the article used innuendo and ad hominem attacks rather than facts inan attempt to smear a group of fine organizations and individuals whoare working in the interests of science and the public good.

Thegenesis of Mr. Giles’ report should also prompt concern. Why are somepeople more interested in PR firms than real issues? Are they afraid ofother voices entering the debate? Why is there no reporting on themillions of dollars spent by open access advocates to promote theirperspective?

What these parties don'twant others to know is that Association of American Publishers partnerswith the World Health Organization to provide free access to thousandsof medical journals in developing countries; how AAP publishers arehelping the National Institutes of Health to archive and link articlesfor public access; how AAP publishers were instrumental in conceivingpatientINFORM.org with top health organizations to provide free medicalresearch information to patients and their caregivers, and how millionsof research articles are freely available by publishers’ independentactions.

Non-profit and commercialpublishers today give scientists, doctors and the public more access tomore information than ever before. It is publishers who invest inpeer-review, print and online dissemination, and archiving, nottaxpayers. All this debate boils down to is some people wantingsomething for nothing.

The unintendedconsequences of government mandated open access are real andpotentially damaging, and we will fulfill our responsibility tocommunicate those risks because doing so is in the best interest ofscience and society.

Brian D. Crawford, Ph.D.

Chairman, Executive Council

Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division

Association of American Publishers