Re: [SOAF] PRISM doesn't speak for Rockefeller University Press (fwd)

From: David Prosser <david.prosser_at_BODLEY.OX.AC.UK>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:16:34 +0100

It is extremely difficult to know who PRISM speaks for. On the website
( they claim to be a partnership and
coalition. The press release announcing the launch of PRISM talks of a
'coalition of scholarly societies and publishers'. However, I can't see
anywhere on the website a list of these partner or coalition members.


David C Prosser PhD
SPARC Europe
Tel: +44 (0) 1865 277 614
Mobile: +44 (0) 7974 673 888

-----Original Message-----
From: American Scientist Open Access Forum
Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
Sent: 30 August 2007 20:05
Subject: [SOAF] PRISM doesn't speak for Rockefeller University Press (fwd)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:46:53 -0400
From: Peter Suber <>
To: SPARC Open Access Forum <>
Subject: [SOAF] PRISM doesn't speak for Rockefeller University Press

[Forwarding from Mike Rossner, Executive Director of Rockefeller University
Press, with his permission. --Peter Suber.]

To the American Association of Publishers:

I am writing to request that a disclaimer be placed on the PRISM website
( indicating that the views presented on the
site do not necessarily reflect those of all members of the AAP. We at the
Rockefeller University Press strongly disagree with the spin that has been
placed on the issue of open access by PRISM.

First, the website implies that the NIH (and other funding agencies who
release of content after a short delay) are advocating the demise of peer
review. Nothing could be further from the truth. These agencies completely

understand the need to balance public access to journal content with the
necessity for publishers to recoup the costs of peer review. After extended

discussions with publishers, these agencies have determined that delayed
release of content (none of them are advocating immediate release unless
publishers are compensated handsomely for such release) is consistent with
STM subscription business model, in which peer review is a basic tenet.

Second, how can PRISM refer to bias when the government is mandating that
papers resulting from research they fund be released to the public after a
short delay? The major potential for bias by the government and other
agencies has already occurred when they decide what research to fund (e.g.,
stem cell research).

Third, PRISM takes issue with government spending on a repository of papers
resulting from government-funded research. The government has been forced
this position by those publishers who refuse to ever release most of their
content to the public.

Fourth, PRISM maintains that published papers are private property. Most of

the research published by STM publishers only exists because of public
No public funding - no research - no millions in profit. Publishers thus
an obligation to give some of their private property back to the public, on
whose taxes they depend for their very existence.

Finally, we take issue with the title: Partnership for Research Integrity in

Science and Medicine. The use of the term "research integrity" is
inappropriate in this context. The common use of this term refers to
the data presented are accurate representations of what was actually
In other words, has any misconduct occurred? This is not the primary
of peer reviewers, who ask whether the data presented support the
drawn. It is thus incorrect to link the term research integrity directly
peer review.

I could go on, but I think you will get the point that we strongly disagree
with the tack AAP has taken on this issue. We urge you to put a disclaimer
the PRISM site, to make it clear that your assertions do not represent the
views of all of your members.

Yours sincerely,
Mike Rossner, Ph.D.
Executive Director
The Rockefeller University Press
Received on Fri Aug 31 2007 - 11:26:27 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:02 GMT