[LINK] For-profit publishers getting ready to trash-talk open access

[rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au]

I love the 'moral equivalence' ...

>The consultant advised them to focus on simple messages, such as
>"Public access equals government censorship". 
>
"Transparent lie" hardly even begins to cover it. If I choose to 
publish, the price at which I publish has no impact on someone else's 
freedom to publish...

>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".
>  
>
This is interesting, given the PR's Exxon connections; because another 
Exxon camp-follower, the Cato Institute, part-funded a scientist to 
write an anti-Stern paper, and one of the arguments used *against* Stern 
is that the peer review process is biased and non-transparent. The hydra 
heads of American corporate lobbying don't even speak in unison!

>Dezenhall also recommended joining forces with groups that may be
>ideologically opposed to government-mandated projects such as PubMed
>Central, including organizations that have angered scientists. One
>suggestion was the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative
>think-tank based in Washington DC, which has used oil-industry money
>to promote sceptical views on climate change. Dezenhall estimated his
>fee for the campaign at $300,000–500,000.
>  
>
Speaking of a hydra ... the Competitive Enterprise Institute is at least 
known to the Cato Institute, since two of its VPs are now CEI directors.

It is legitimate and inevitable that someone whose interests are 
threatened will defend those interests. But the old game of "lie about 
your opponent and confuse your public" is not just grimy, it won't *work*.

RC