Rather than watch him fence with those who find the news depressing,
I would be *much* more interested in hearing Peter's views (as a
publisher) on the Nature article
(
http://app.e2ma.net/app/view:CampaignPublic/id:5584.488570120/rid:e3e4a8b51811b488325833e38df79bc5),
and the apparent decision by some of his colleagues to hire Eric
Dezenhall (
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Eric_Dezenhall)
to engage in "media massaging" -- with the aim of trying to ward off
the relentless march of Open Access.
I would also be very keen to hear the views of the AAP, Elsevier,
Wiley and ACS, all of whom Nature reports as being involved in the
decision to hire Dezenhall, and all of whom have employees who appear
to monitor this list.
Richard Poynder
Freelance Journalist
www.richardpoynder.com
http://poynder.blogspot.com
At 12:49 26/01/2007, you wrote:
>How many journals could PLoS have started with the $436,760 it
>lists on "marketing and advertising" on its 2004 IRS 990 form?
>
>Peter Banks
>Banks Publishing
>Publications Consulting and Services
>pbanks_at_bankspub.com
>www.bankspub.com
>www.associationpublisher.com/blog/
>
>
>On 1/25/07 7:17 PM, "Heather Morrison" <heatherm_at_eln.bc.ca> wrote:
>
> > There are some in the publishing community who are spending
> > significant sums fighting open access - for example, Nature
> > recently reported that AAP spent $300,000 - $500,000 in 2006, as
> > reported in their article, PR's "pitbull" takes on open access -
> > January 25, 2007.
> >
Received on Sat Jan 27 2007 - 04:21:34 GMT