From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 16:13:35 +0100

I'm not convinced by Anthony's version of history - especially his
assertion that the only anti-OA lobbying has been on the issue of
mandates.

Let's remind ourselves of the 2004 UK House of Commons Science and
Technology Committee inquiry into scholarly publishing.  The evidence
is all available at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/39902.htm

There were three main 'anti-OA' lines from the publishers in both the
written and oral evidence that had nothing to do with mandates:

1. OA is unnecessary as big deals have given everybody who needs
access the access they need.

2. Gold OA through publication charges will pervert peer review (see,
for example, the answer of Crispin Davis from Elsevier to Q65 in the
first oral evidence session)

3. OA will put information into the hands of the ignorant and
uneducated leading to dangerous results (see, for example, the answer
of John Jarvis from Wiley to Q19 in the first oral evidence session)

The perversion of peer review was, of course, picked up in the PRISM
campaign - fronted by the AAP/PSP (and paid for by whom I wonder?)
that attempted to equate open access to junk science
(http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2007/08/publishers-launch-anti-oa-lobbying.html)

These lines of argument diminished as BMC, PLoS, Hindawi, etc, etc,
proved the viability of high quality OA journal publishing, but let's
not pretend that there was no lobby against OA in general 10 years
ago.

(I would also argue that the lobbying on copyright and mandates has
been damaging, but at least Anthony concedes that it exists!)

David


On 15 Jul 2013, at 23:59, LIBLICENSE wrote:

From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 05:58:03 +0100

I admire the industry of Richard Poynder and can remember the time when he
was an independent consultant but cannot agree with his perception becoming
history. He writes:

"Since then the OA movement has gone from strength to strength, in what has
become a classic David and Goliath contest - a smallish group of impecunious
but tireless OA advocates lined up against an army of well-heeled
corporations determined to stop them"

I can write from knowledge:

Some publishers are well-heeled but until recently only one publisher has
employed people to lobby about anything. They have also been very reluctant
to put enough money into their representative organisations. Again people
employed to lobby in these organisations are a new development.

Where lobbying is done the main thrust has always been the defence of
copyright.

Where there has and is lobbying against OA it is lobbying against mandates.
I cannot recall any publisher or publishing body trying to stop BMC
(2000-2001) from acting as an OA publisher. BMC can tell us if there has
been. Now of course they are members of representative publishing bodies.

SPARC decided about 2001 to use its funds to promote OA and run down its
partnership programme. I do not consider that ARL is a tiny organisation.
Look at its basic staff list and then at the list of (for example) of STM
staff. Whatever money they have put into SPARC has been richly supplemented
by foundations not directly perhaps but to organisations like PLOS. Of
course if you are characterised as David you do have the advantage of having
the Deity on your side.

Anthony