| Page 2 of 2 < |
Publishing Group Hires 'Pit Bull of PR'
|
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
|
Schroeder said it would be wrong to make a big deal of the arrangement. Dezenhall "is an esteemed author," she said, adding that his firm is not so bare-knuckled that it ought to be avoided. "You take any PR firm in Washington," she said. "I mean, please."
But after years of failing to make headway -- two bills and appropriations language mandating public access to government-funded research are slated to be introduced in the new Congress -- the publishers decided they needed help.
"We thought we were angels for a long time and we didn't need PR firms," Schroeder said.
Heather Joseph, executive director of the Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition, which has been lobbying for more public access, offered a different perspective.
"It is dismaying to see the AAP turn it into a disinformation campaign," Joseph said in an e-mail. "These policies are not about government censorship or destroying peer review -- they are about expanding access to publicly funded science -- pure and simple."
Dezenhall said in an e-mail that he does not comment on clients or contracts.
Kevin McCauley, editor of the trade publication O'Dwyer's PR Report and the man who coined Dezenhall's "pit bull" appellation in a 2006 interview with Business Week, said the publishing association may live to regret the image of desperation that comes with an association with Dezenhall.
"The question I want to ask the publishing association is why a group that publishes scholarly journals feels the need to go this route," McCauley said.
His question might best be answered by the one-page statement the association released yesterday, which Schroeder confirmed was written internally and not by Dezenhall.
"Private sector non-profit and commercial publishers serve researchers and scientists by managing and funding the peer review process, disseminating authors' work, investing in technology and preserving millions of peer-reviewed articles as part of the permanent record of science," the statement read, in part.
Convinced?


