Scientific publishers launch disinformation campaign against open-access scientific publication. Specifically, they don't want grant agencies to require researchers to make their results public, so they're calling any such requirement "censorship". Newspeak at its best. Sadly, it's not just the usual scam artistscommercial scientific publishing houses such as Elsevier and Wiley that are involved: it's also the American Chemical Society. Another great reason to take one's own papers to journals not controlled by these groups. Via [info]janitor_x.


Comments:

brooksmoses:
2007-01-25T05:12:54Z
Oh, my. And Nature is certainly taking the gloves off in its reporting of the matter, too.
11011110:
2007-01-25T16:29:40Z
Yeah, I was happy to see Nature taking a side in this, at least.
0olong:
2007-01-25T11:24:11Z
Hah! Is that the first time anyone has had the audacity to describe it as censorship when something is caused to be published, I wonder?
11011110:
2007-01-25T16:34:34Z
Sadly, I suspect that it's far from the first. But I don't know of any prominent precendents.
None: Nature article not public
2007-05-03T04:01:07Z
Since the Nature article is not public, it's contents are irrelevant.
None:

11011110: Re: Nature article not public
2007-05-03T06:06:00Z
An interestingly head-in-the-sand attitude. But many subscription-only articles such as those in Nature can be accessed easily enough by most members of the public, by walking into the library of the nearest public university.