Eric Dezenhall PR memo to publishers leaked

Jim Giles, New Scientist contributor, got the memo and wrote a blog post and an article about it. You can read the actual memo here (pdf) to see what Dezenhall advised the dinosaur publishers to do to stave off the inevitable move to Open Access. So now you can see where PRISM comes from.

5 responses to “Eric Dezenhall PR memo to publishers leaked

  1. I made a text version of the PDF, if anybody would prefer that, available here.

  2. Coturnix on Dezenhall (01/25/07): Big Science Publishers “opted to go all mean and nasty. Once they finally lose, they’ll lose for good and it will not be pretty… they will use the trickery with language in their efforts to slander the Open Source and Open Science organizations and online journals.”
    Dezenhall Memo: “There are no clear villains. Government is looking to give taxpayers free access to the research that they fund and publishers are trying to protect their business and the integrity of the research they publish.”
    That doesn’t sound mean and nasty. The tactics listed in the memo include Rhetorical Campaign Points, Opposition Analysis, Targeted Advertising. No where do I see slander suggested as a strategy. The language of the memo is undeniably less inflammatory than the blog of the PLoS-One Online Community Manager.
    I think that the worst that can be said of the memo is that Dezenhall appears on board with Nisbet’s ideas on framing.
    Framing, or as you might call it: “trickery with language.”

  3. Lies and deception are, by definition, nasty. You know who I work for. Who are you respresenting?

  4. Herb,
    You are the only one misrepresenting the truth here. As you know the true statement you cited was actually listed under “challenges” to the coalition. As in, the reality is that open publishing is good, and people know it, this is the challenge the publishers overcome.
    As the truth is the identified challenge, naturally the rest of the memo, if you read it, describes how misinformation can be used to obscure the issue and forward the coalition’s agenda.
    Consider, for example, this false statement under “opportunities”.
    “Publishers invest considerable resources through the peer review process to ensure that only the best articles are published in their journals.”
    As we all know, it is scientists who spend the time reviewing papers during the peer review process and they do this free of charge. Thus proving expensive journal subscriptions are an unnecessary component of the peer review process.

  5. What this article misses is the importance of the American Chemical Society in promoting the misinformation on Open Access.
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Chemical_Society