Nature reported in January that the Association of American Publishers had hired Eric Dezenhall, who is famous for “aggressive” public relations, to argue against open access (“PR’s ‘pit bull’ takes on open access”, Nature 24 January, 2007 ). Now, PRISM , the “Partnership for Research Integrity in Science and Medicine” is here, taking a hard line against open access.
Their positions are Orwellian. Jonathan Eisen (in his blog entry “PRISM – Partnership for Research Integrity in Science and Medicine – Seems like a spoof but it is real, and sad”) finds several examples to poke fun at. I don’t think it’s possible for an informed person to read more than a paragraph on the PRISM web site and take it seriously. PRISM seeks to muddy the debate with inflammatory language and distorted views of the issues.
I am not saying that open access does not pose problems that need to be carefully considered, but to describe it in terms of “special interests” (who would that be, research scientists?) and “undue government intervention,” and to claim the side of “integrity” while “setting the record straight” is to declare war on reasonable debate. Throwing mud (or a prism) into the eyes of those who seek to see this debate clearly is an affront to the “scientific, medical and other scholarly researcher who seeks to advance the cause of knowledge.” No such researcher, whatever their views on open access, could possibly support PRISM.
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.
The Association of American Publishers made a mistake by seeking to distort this debate. The AAP web site claims that the organization seeks “To promote intellectual freedom and to oppose all forms of censorship, at home and abroad.” Publishing is inherently about providing information, and it is not a field that naturally attracts people who prefer to win the debate than to find the truth. When the AAP hired this pit bull they were working against their own nature. They goofed. Like Michael Vick, they are free to change their ways. The pit bull can then go work for another client, one who has less to lose by offending those who care about integrity.
I agree – it is time to boycott AAP over this. I too got very angry when I read the PRISM site and I assume that is part of their goal. AAP should be ashamed of this and if not, well, we should make them regret participating in it.
I’m not sure you guys saw the fiasco regarding the photos they used on their site. They used copyright images without permission or attribution.
Thanks. I had missed the fiasco over copyright, but I was genuinely amused by PISD, which is indeed a spoof (I think).
Ahahahaha! The logo is the best! PISD… some imagination!
Jonathan Eisen has now endorsed the boycott and posted a list of AAP publishers. See it on his blog, The Tree of Life. Thanks, Jonathan!
There has been a lot about PRISM since my post. Publishers are making it clear that they indeed do not support PRISM. This is summarized by Alex Palazzo as “many publishers are distancing themselves from this organization … and rightfully so.”
Tom Wilson resigned from an Elsevier editorial board.
Timo Hannay says (speaking for Nature) “we are not involved in PRISM and we have not been consulted about it.” He then goes on to discuss open access in a very reasonable way (a good direction for this debate to take).