Wired News will publish a story of mine later this week about the debate over open access to scientific journals -- should research be free to all? Lately, traditional publishers have been gearing up to fight off attempts to make open access mandatory.
The following is a letter sent by Brian Crawford, chair of the Association of American Publishers'
Professional & Scholarly Publishing Division. He's been acting as a spokesman for traditional scientific publishers.
You can see how stung publishers were by recent media coverage and by the fact that some internal emails were leaked. There's something else to note here: the letter makes a point of mentioning that the publisher of Nature, which first wrote about the publishers' public relations campaign, is a member of AAP.
Any guesses about why Crawford felt that was important to mention?
January 26, 2007
Dear Colleagues
Some time ago, our trade association engaged a public relations firm to assist us in communicating more effectively our messages about the unintended consequences of government-mandated open access to published scientific research. I am writing to bring to your attention recent news coverage that seeks to portray AAP/PSP and its member publishers in an unfavorable manner for taking this action.
A news item by reporter Jim Giles (http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070122/full/445347a.html) published in Nature (itself owned by a member publisher of AAP) has criticized the motives of publishers and our choice of public relations consulting firm—one known for its expertise and effectiveness. I want to assure you that our purpose is to communicate important information about the added value that publishers bring to the scholarly publishing process—information not widely known or appreciated by policy makers. Scholarly publishers have been slow to recognize that the misleading soundbite messages and aggressive lobbying tactics of those who wish to influence government and public policy have been orchestrated and funded by organizations wishing to advance their own agenda. That they continue to do so without regard for the very real risk of damage to science and the public, should peer-reviewed publishing be compromised by unnecessary government intervention, needs to be countered with clear and concise messaging of our own.
An astonishing example of how misleading the accusations against publishers can be appears in today’s Washington Post:
(www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501705.html?referrer=emailarticle)
where reporter Rick Weiss asserts that the AAP has “…for years waged an intellectually nuanced battle against medical associations and advocates for the ill” and also quotes a SPARC representative who accuses us of engaging in a “disinformation campaign.” Nothing could be further from the truth. AAP/PSP, acting on behalf of its member and other publishers, is actively involved in facilitating author participation in the current voluntary NIH public access policy, and has offered to assist NIH as it struggles to implement its own policy. In addition, AAP/PSP has itself fostered publisher participation in public-private cooperative initiatives designed to broaden access to the medical literature. An example of this is patientInform (www.patientInform.org) which seeks to empower patients and their caregivers by providing free access to the latest medical research, along with expert analysis written specifically for the layman. Another publisher initiative designed to improve health and human welfare is HINARI
(www.who.int/hinari/about/en/ ) whereby publishers provide immediate online access to a broad spectrum of health-related peer-reviewed research to developing nations. Finally, individual publishers continue to broaden access to scientific content through their own initiatives.
Regrettably, the news reports above were somehow stimulated by reporters gaining access to internal emails and background information shared within AAP/PSP and among those volunteer publisher representatives who have worked so hard to support the health and vitality of our industry by helping to improve our education and outreach. The inappropriate disclosure of this information is very disturbing to me personally, and I regret that it has led to such a gross misinterpretation of our motives and methods.
In order to avoid any further misunderstanding about our intentions, AAP/PSP has released a statement (attached herewith) that confirms our commitment to achieving the widest possible dissemination of peer-reviewed research and preserving the integrity of the scholarly record—even when that means cautioning against the perils of government mandates. I encourage you to read and disseminate the attached statement as you see fit, and to share it with any members of the media who contact you for comment about your support of our messages and our association’s activities in this area. Let me emphasize that “our messages” means just that—our point of view, expressed from our own perspective as publishing professionals committed to freedom of speech and open intellectual debate.
Thank you for your attention to this important issue, and for your support.
Sincerely,
Brian D. Crawford, Ph.D.
Chair, PSP Executive Council
