The Open Access "Debate"

Open access is a phrase used to describe the publishing of peer reviewed research in journals/websites which do not charge subscription fees. Since a bulk of published scientific literature  in the US arises directly from government, i.e. taxpayer funding, the public has already paid for this research. So, this is a debate in the sense that global warming is a debate, and yet another depressing indication of the plutocracy-protectionary principle!

Science & Technology at Scientific American.com: Open Access to Science Under Attack — Advocates of open access to scientific research may find themselves under fire from high-profile public relations flaks and high-powered lobbying groups.

The Professional and Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers hired Eric Dezenhall, head of Dezenhall Resources, a PR firm that specializes in “high stakes communications and marketplace defense,” to address some of its members this past summer and potentially craft a media strategy.

Yes, go ahead, use the same publicist types that brought you the “CO2 is life” campaign. If you read the article fully, you’ll see that these publicists suggest a simple message:

“it’s hard to fight an adversary that manages to be both elusive and in possession of a better message: Free information.” Finally, Dezenhall suggests joining forces with think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute and National Consumers League in an attempt to persuade key players of the potential risks of unfiltered access. “Paint a picture of what the world would look like without peer-reviewed articles,” he adds.

Yes, of course, open access journals are not peer reviewed, cigarettes are not addictive, CO2 is life, 1+1=3 (just checking!)

I am ashamed to call myself a member of the egregious American Chemical Society, which is part of this lobbying effort along with Elsevier and Wiley.

Let’s review who’s getting paid for publishing their work with one of these wonderful journals

  1. The authors:
  2. The peer reviewers
  3. The editors of the Journal
  4. The people who own the journal
  5. The shareholders of Wiley and Elsevier

The divisions could not be more clearly drawn. The people who produce the work, and the people who check the work for scientific accuracy, readability, appropriateness and suitability don’t get paid, the man does!

For an alternative, check out the workings of PLOS.

I hope the whole current system dies a swift and painless death.

9 comments for “The Open Access "Debate"

  1. January 31, 2007 at 4:00 am

    It won’t be swift or painless, but I’d guess that in a decade or two, the ACS will be primarily a conference organizer and lobbying organization. That’d serve ’em right.

  2. Pingback: whipped frosting
  3. Pingback: choice ks
  4. Pingback: natural cure
  5. June 4, 2007 at 11:19 am