Science Journal Publishers Wary of Free Information

Billosaur writes "Nature.com is reporting that the Association of American Publishers (AAP), which includes the companies that publish scientific journals, is becoming concerned with the free-information movement. A meeting was arranged with PR professional Eric Dezenhall to discuss the problem. Dezenhall's firm has worked with the likes of ExxonMobil 'to criticize the environmental group Greenpeace', among other campaigns. The publishers are worried that the free exchange of scientific information may be bad for the bottom line, as it might cause the money from subscriptions to their journals to dry up. Among the recommendations: 'The consultant advised them to focus on simple messages, such as "Public access equals government censorship". He hinted that the publishers should attempt to equate traditional publishing models with peer review, and "paint a picture of what the world would look like without peer-reviewed articles.' The AAP is trying to counter messages from groups such as the Public Library of Science (PLoS), an open-access publisher and prominent advocate of free access to information, or the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) PubMed Central."

Comments

Freedom is not corporate exploitation.

[sethstorm]

Forbes
Wasnt Forbes the one who released the study that stated it was permissible to drop quality by the wayside? Taking them seriously as an ethical entity becomes hard after seeing that one come out.

1. Bill Gates
  Privledged silverspoon Harvardite that dropped out early. Maybe when there are universal, no-refusal (by any means, financial or otherwise) admissions to any university offered to multigenerational citizens of all backgrounds, followed up by a policy that you cannot be discriminated by your nonacademic conduct - then I'll take Harvard, Yale, Princeton and the ilk seriously. Otherwise they're just a bunch of schools to write off.

2. Warren Buffet
Midwestern oddity that somehow got here, and serves no real purpose outside of proving his lack of ethics. Safely ignored and shunned.

4. Larry Ellison
If you dont mind tons of bugs in the code, fine.


7. Christy Walton
8. Robson Walton
10. Alice Walton

The three bad apples who turned Walmart into China*Mart and would be better served to be deported. Since these three have done a 180 to the company in terms of ethics, maybe they'd be well served somewhere that they can regain that lost sense. Although I'd gladly accept a nice 90% bracket on their foreign assets crafted for entities such as them. Foreign asset loopholes need to be closed somehow.

9. Michael Dell
Deport this guy with the Waltons. 90% tax bracket on all foreign assets acceptable.

So, about half the people on the list deservedly need to be respected for the way they came from humble beginnings to contribute so much.
Apparently you dont get the point. They're just as guilty as the guy that's buried somewhere in Aspen. Respect for unethical entities just doesnt make any sense.

And other half are due to Sam old man Walton who might have unceremoniously departed before he could have thought about charity or some other social contribution. But hey all the bucks that even he accumulated and left for his bounty litter, must be spent and given back to the society, or invested in it to make more of it, right?
What part of ethics do you not understand?
They're lost causes. The best you can do is put foreign assets in a 90% tax bracket, used in part to ramrod universal admissions to clean up their mess. Allowing a by-country exemption would just get them to set up fronts for companies that have abused their status.

Is there a company that exists west of the Mississippi that's quite profitable, ethical, doesn't make a point to sell out to Asia and doesnt act like some exclusive university (yes Google, that's pointed towards you)? Or does ethics seem to be inversely proportional to profit?