Emotion and logic and PRISM

PRISM = Publishers Relying on Insidious Subversion Methods

From Peter Suber:

The AAP/PSP has launched PRISM (Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine). I’m quoting today’s press release in its entirety so that I can respond to it at length:

A new initiative was announced today to bring together like minded scholarly societies, publishers, researchers and other professionals in an effort to safeguard the scientific and medical peer-review process and educate the public about the risks of proposed government interference with the scholarly communication process.[much egregious lying]
Anyone who wishes to sign on to the PRISM Principles may do so on the site.

Bill: Fortunately for us all, Peter has already responded; I won’t excerpt his point-by-point rebuttal here, you should go read it all.This is disgusting. This runs counter to everything that science, academia, scholarship (and scholarly publishing!) stand for.
There are no names on the PRISM site yet — but I’m going to find as many as I can and publish them here. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I want to know just who is taking part in this revolting effort to steal from the commons and turn public goods into private profit.
(We can start with the AAP: their members page is essentially one long list of companies and organizations with whom I will assiduously avoid doing business until and unless they dissociate themselves from PRISM, and preferably from the AAP altogether.)
More later. Oh yes indeedy.

PMR: The arguments from the PRISM community are not new – primarily that OA destroys peer review and therefore science/scholarship. This is, of course, completely fallacious. If you wish to see a clinical dismissal of the publishers’ position read PeterS. Otherwise imbibe the raw emotion of Bill.

PMR: To amplify (again reported by PeterS):

PMR: What disappoints me is that few of the conventional publishers have taken a positive view about the future. The future is EXCITING. The publishers are obstructing us getting there. Even the more forward-looking ones.

Part of the problem is that publishing is a cross between a public service and a commercial business. It hasn’t worked out where it stands and where it should stand. It is becoming increasingly clear that if it takes the business route it is will go down the video media route typified by the appalling FACT [1] adverts on DVDs. (These are the ubiquitous adverts telling you what will happen if you copy the DVD you have bought or rented. It really sets the scene for an evening’s watching. Perhaps we should have:

“You wouldn’t steal a car?”

“You wouldn’t steal a TV?”

“If you read a scientific paper you are not entitled to this is THEFT!!!!”

And it should be mandatory to have to read this declaration for 30 seconds before you are allowed to read the paper.

After all I am not just a scientific reader of a paper, I am a potential thief. And I should be told what dire fate awaits me if I dare to read scientific research I haven’t paid for. I shall have more replies from publishers to publish shortly.

Meanwhile back to Java.

[1] ADDED LATER. FACT is the Federation against Copyright Theft – at least in the UK.  Every time you watch a movie – at home or in the cinema – you are treated to an obligatory series of advertisements about the immorality, illegality and cost-ineffectiveness of pirate videos and movies. For many people it spoils the experience of the work. That’s increasingly how I feel about the conventional publishing industry. Having my work described as “junk science” when it is published in Open Access journals is simply an illiterate insult. Having Open Access described as “ethically flawed” is as bad.

Publishers should be enhancing the process and quality of scholarly communication. A  publication should be something in which all can take some pride, not simply a piece of commerce to be defended.