Would an association thoroughly convinced that its industry has a great deal to offer the research world hire a famous smear artist to come up with soundbite lies about a new set of competitive business models?
Right. I don’t think so either. I think that’s the action of a terrified group of amoral scumbags who see the future rushing in and will do whatever they can think of to stop it. I think it’s the action of a terrified group of amoral scumbags completely bankrupt of actual insight or innovation and utterly desperate to keep their current unjustifiable profit margins. I think, in short, it’s the action of a terrified group of amoral scumbags. I am just that appalled.
If I were a scholarly publisher, I would distance myself from this fiasco far, fast, and publicly… and if my rep on the AAP had been involved in any way other than “vigorous opposition,” that rep would be fired immediately—not just from representing the publisher to the AAP, but altogether. Elsevier, Wiley, ACS, and (it would appear) others have a lot of explaining to do.
No love lost for the AAP from me; I’ve never liked them, so if they burn up, fall down, and sink into the swamp over this, it’s all good from where I’m sitting, and frankly no more than they deserve. At the very least, there had better be a good hard shakeup and some serious movement toward transparency, or the AAP will sink its members (even those not directly involved with this) right down into the swamp with it.
Suddenly I feel tainted just having skin in this game, honestly. I’ll confess to hyperbole, ranting, the occasional bit of spin, and unabashed partisanry on CavLec. I cannot imagine resorting to a campaign of secondhand whoppers.
