Imagine having open access to all of the world's scientific literature and scientific data. Now wake up, because if science publishers and even some scientists have it their way, it ain't gonna happen. The latest article by Jim Giles in Nature gives a glimpse of just how far publishers will go to not just keep their own publications behind a subscription wall, but also squash efforts by the government to require that taxpayer supported research results be made available to the public through open access journals or archives, such as PubMed:
Now, Nature has learned, a group of big scientific publishers has hired the pit bull [Eric Dezenhall (pictured)] to take on the free-information movement, which campaigns for scientific results to be made freely available. Some traditional journals, which depend on subscription charges, say that open-access journals and public databases of scientific papers such as the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) PubMed Central, threaten their livelihoods.
From e-mails passed to Nature, it seems Dezenhall spoke to employees from Elsevier, Wiley and the American Chemical Society (ACS) at a meeting arranged last July by the Association of American Publishers (AAP). A follow-up message in which Dezenhall suggests a strategy for the publishers provides some insight into the approach they are considering taking.
The consultant advised them 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".
Scientific American has a follow-up article with more examples of how the ACS has paid lobbying firms to convince lawmakers that open access is a bad idea:
[T]he ACS paid lobbying firm Hicks Partners LLC at least $100,000 in 2005 to try to persuade congressional members, NIH, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that a "PubChem Project" would be a bad idea, according to public lobbying disclosures, and paid an additional $180,000 to the Wexler & Walker Public Policy Association to promote the "use of commercial database." It also spent a chunk of its 2005 $280,000 internal lobbying budget as well as part of its $270,000 lobbying budget last year to push the issue, according to disclosure documents.
Is this just a last gasp from desperate, old school publishing houses that haven't figured out a more creative way to operate in the digital, open access landscape? Should we really be worried?
From Joe at Back of the Envelope:
Doesn't surprise me - this industry has descended into blatant rent-seeking behaviour over the last couple decades. It's gotten to the point in my field (heterogeneous catalysis) that all (pretty much) the journals dedicated to the subject are owned by Elsevier. No prizes for guessing what happens when you own all the journals....Add in these ridiculous 'impact factor' calculations and you have the makings of a ludicrous Kafkaesque like rabbit warren of being seen to publish in journals not because it's good work but because the journals themselves define good work. Madness! ...
In reponse, we've created two new categories in the Element List science link directory for open access journals and related open access sites, like Open Access News by Peter Suber. There is also the Directory of Open Access Journals, which currently lists 2545 journals covering everything from art to business to engineering. Send us more OA links if you've got 'em.