Open-Access: Old-School Publishers Fight Back

So let's say you're a publisher of medical journals. You charge subscribers hundreds of dollars a year to get the latest studies about oncology or podiatry or abnormal psychology. The money rolls in, the journals roll out, and everything is good.

Then along come a tide of open-access journals that let everyone read research for free. Do you join the trend for the good of humanity?

Naw. You launch a public relations offensive:

Now, Nature has learned, a group of big scientific publishershas hired [a "pit bull" p.r. guy] to take on the free-information movement, whichcampaigns for scientific results to be made freely available. Sometraditional journals, which depend on subscription charges, say thatopen-access journals and public databases of scientific papers such asthe National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) PubMed Central, threatentheir livelihoods.

This week, I'll be writing a story for Wired News about the future ofscientific-journal publishing. It'll be a follow-up to a story I wrotein 2005.

How big of a threat do open-access journals pose to traditionalpublishers? What does the old guard hope to accomplish through publicrelations? And what will the open-access battle mean for your friendlyneighborhood scientists and doctors who rely on these journals?

Speaking of open access, Wired News is embracing the concept in itsreporting. As I do research and talk to experts for this story, you'llget updates in this blog.

So feel free to act like an editor and order me around
make helpful suggestions. If you have thoughts on angles for this story-- and good sources for me to interview -- drop them in the comments.

P.R.'s 'pit bull' [Nature]