The Memo Behind PRISM: A Battle Plan for Attacks on Open Access Publishing and Intelligent Discourse in General

Eric Dezenhall is a PR consultant who has distinguished himself by advising such wonderfully truth-fearing organizations as the Regan government, Exxon and Enron. Lately he's been working for the Association of American Publishers (which includes publishers such as Elsevier, Wiley and the American Chemical Society) in support of their efforts to impede technological and societal progress by attacking the open access publishing movement. Leading to the joke that is the infamous lobby group PRISM.

Now you can read all about the tactics he has recommended in this leaked memo (reprinted in text form below). Dezenhall concedes that reality is poised against the AAPs positions, therefore obscuring and confusing the truth with "high-concept rhetoric" is what is needed:

"Proposed Coalition Strategies and Tactics

Summary

The Coalition faces the daunting task of trying to win support for an issue in which publishers are not sympathetic — continuing to charge fees for access to scientific journals. It’s hard to fight an adversary that manages to be both elusive and in possession of a better message: Free information. There is no magical sound bite that will cure this issue, however, at the present time, there is little to no “pushback” from the publishing industry. To inject the industry’s position into the debate, we recommend bypassing mass “consumer” audiences in favor of reaching a more elite group of decision makers employing strategies that emphasize “high-concept” rhetoric and in-the-trenches political-style communications.

Challenges

• 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.
• The free internet movement is strong and getting stronger
  • With the growing availability of free information on the Internet, the public feels that this is one more thing that should be accessible to all people at no charge.
• The public access issue is dry, bloodless, complex and, to most, uninteresting

Opportunities

• The publishing industry provides genuine value-added in its production of scientific journals
  • Publishers invest considerable resources through the peer review process to ensure that only the best articles are published in their journals.
• There is an epidemic of bad information on the internet and elite media know it
  • With the number of surveys and studies available on the Internet, it is difficult to separate genuine science from junk science. Peer reviewed journals are the only reliable source for sound science.

Strategies

• Supplement the Coalition’s lobbying efforts with communications “air cover”
• Simplify the Coalition’s arguments into easily digestible concepts (e.g., censorship)
• Mobilize a discretionary campaign-style team to inform key intellectuals about the risks associated with supporting the public access movement
• Communicate directly on some issues, but seek the support of third-party support on others (e.g., dangers of censorship, threats to free enterprise)

Target Audiences

• Members of Congress
• Targeted regulators
• Key media
• Think tank community
• The larger publishing community, librarians, researchers and scientists to reach more potential allies

Tactics

1. Form a Single-Issue Coalition

A coalition of concerned publishers must be formed as the industry’s collective point-group on the public access issue. A spokesperson must be selected and media-trained and a clearinghouse for information must be established. A website should be strongly considered.

2. Rhetorical Campaign Points

• Develop simple messages (e.g., Public access equals government censorship; Scientific journals preserve the quality/pedigree of science; government seeking to nationalize science and be a publisher) for use by Coalition members
• Develop analogies that put the public access issue in a context whereby target audiences will understand its pitfalls and perilous implications not to mention the hypocrisy of science leaders getting salaries and honoraria but declaring the publishing industry’s need for capital as being somehow immoral
  • Paint a picture of what the world would look like without peer reviewed articles.
  • In theory this may provide free taxpayer access to research that they fund, but they will pay eventually with substandard articles and their money being used to develop and maintain an electronic article depot rather than to fund new research.

3. Opposition Analysis

Inventory the Coalition’s adversaries, their arguments and weaknesses prior to launching communications.

4. Enlist Think Tank Support

Seek studies, white papers and public commentary from think tanks that may quantify the risks, the societal price tag of public access. Groups that may be considered include the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings, Cato, Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Consumers League.

5. Media Briefings and Placement

Conduct a fresh round of media briefings with high-end editorial, health and science writers and reporters. Conduct op-ed article placement.

6. Targeted Advertising

To trade journals and Beltway publications (e.g., The Hill, Roll Call) emphasizing key rhetorical points.

Estimated Budget

$300,000 - $500,000 for a six month program."

Feel free to point out the many flaws in his arguments in comments below.

Credit to Palazzo for pointing to this info, Blake Stacey for converting the memo to text format (which I have copied and pasted here) and Jim Giles for posting the leaked memo on his blog.

On open-access and peer review

We've covered this topic often on both this blog and on the podcast but it may be time to revisit it one more time. Open access (OA) publishing has won the heart of most scientists. By definition our work only gains value by sharing, and sharing is easier when it's free. As an author of papers, I can also retain copyrights over my own work so that I am free to do whatever I please with it, including reproducing it in my thesis or posting it on my blog. I mean what's not to love. Well some people actually oppose it, obviously people who have a vested interest in the multi-million dollar publishing business. PLOS, one of the pioneers in open-access, has basically proven that not only can the idea work, but it can make for a high profile journal. But with the introduction of PLOS-ONE it may have shown its Achilles' heel. See the opponents of open-access always pointed out that openness would destroy peer review. Obviously a ridiculous assertion, since peer review is already open and free. But with PLOS ONE peer review was changed from outside "random" assigned expert to "in-house" academic editors. In fact I strongly suspect that Nature's precedings, was built to fail, an exercise in futility, to show how openness equals lack of peer review and craptacular creationist papers published. And while the opponents of open access like PRISM might have an axe to grind, they also make a good point, what is peer review, and who oversees peer reviewers?

First lets check out what they say one their site: what's at risk?

• undermining the peer review process by compromising the viability of non-profit and commercial journals that manage and fund it;

• opening the door to scientific censorship in the form of selective additions to or omissions from the scientific record;

• subjecting the scientific record to the uncertainty that comes with changing federal budget priorities and bureaucratic meddling with definitive versions; and

• introducing duplication and inefficiencies that will divert resources that would otherwise be dedicated to research.

The first point could have been better formulated. But what I think they are trying to say is "hold-on you guys can't police yourself, you need publishers to manage peer review". I mean they don't actually fund peer review since it's free but they do manage it. I don't see why editors of OA journals can't do the same, but it does raise the need for a peer-review watchdog (more on that later)

The second point is even more asinine. They're saying "Hold-on you can't choose what can and cannot be published, that's censorship, let corporations do that job". This is ironic since the purpose of journals like PLOS ONE is to let people publish based on the quality of the science not the importance of the findings. Importance is subjective, and often Nobel winning discoveries like PCR or antibodies were rejected from publication.

The third argument is also flawed because funding shouldn't affect OA journals, they are run by the publication costs defrayed by the authors. In fact one could argue that traditional private publishing is at the mercy of investors, stock market crashes and economic conditions.

Finally duplications could actually be a problem, especially for journals like PLOS ONE. If papers are not discriminated upon the basis of importance, very small incremental findings could be published which do not really lead the field forward. That being said, I would rather have more information than less. In fact if information is freely available, perhaps you would be less likely to unknowingly duplicate someone's work that was published in an obscure journal to which your institution doesn't have access.

Then what's the answer?:

Well one big step in the right direction was the creation of BPR3 an acronym coined by none other than Kevin Z (of bayblab podcast fame). Bloggers for peer review reporting aims to overview the peer review process, and check out their take on PLOS ONE. Ultimately we need some kind of watchdog, a "peer-review watch", and that it could be born in a blog just shows you the power of web 2.0 and openness.

In the mean time, why not check out this spoof of PRISM (the axis of evil publishers), called PISD (I think it is pronounced [piss]-t):
"We don't believe it's a publisher's place to make the value judgment that dissemination of scientific information is a greater social good than the increase in capital associated with charging higher subscription rates. That judgment should be made by politicians, ethicists, economists, and other valuable members of society. If you would like to know more, we suggest you consult review articles on the theory of utility or the laws of supply and demand. If your institution doesn’t provide access to such articles, we'll be happy to sell them to you at a reasonable price."

Meet the Opposition to Open Access Scientific Publishing

Alex Palazzo's daily transcript has some nice info on the publishing industry's anti-open access lobby group, PRISM. What a bunch of spineless bums.