On Dec 18, 2019, a letter was sent to President Donald Trump from organisations that “represent the leading publishers and non-profit scientific societies in the United States”. The letter argued that a rumour of a proposed plan from the Office of Science and Technology Policy to mandate open access for US Government-funded research “would jeopardize the intellectual property of American organizations engaged in the creation of high-quality peer-reviewed journals and research articles and would potentially delay the publication of new research results”. It framed its message in purely US terms. Signatories wrote about their role “fostering the American leadership in science that drives our economy and global competitiveness”. They suggested that an open access mandate “would significantly harm the system of peer-reviewed scholarly communication that fuels America's leadership in research and innovation”. They urged the president to oppose this proposal. Many who signed the letter were indeed US-based organisations (such as the American Medical Association and American College of Physicians). But others would probably consider their missions to go beyond “fostering…American leadership in science”. They would almost certainly claim they had a global remit, not one narrowly confined to advancing “American competitiveness”. The letter was signed, for example, by the New England Journal of Medicine, Wiley, Wolters Kluwer, and The Lancet's publisher, Elsevier. At last week's Academic Publishing in Europe annual meeting, held in Berlin, Professor Günter Ziegler (President of the Free University of Berlin) mocked the catastrophist language used by publishers in this letter. “There is no such thing as American science or American publishing”, he said. Science is a truly global enterprise. His reprimand showed how far apart the values of science and science publishing have drifted in recent years.

中文翻译：

---

离线：科学的发布信任和灾难。

2019年12月18日，“代表美国领先的出版商和非营利性科学协会”的组织致信唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）。这封信认为，关于科学技术政策办公室提议的一项计划的谣言，该计划要求美国政府资助的研究开放访问权，“将危害从事创建高质量同行评审期刊的美国组织的知识产权，以及研究文章，并有可能延迟新研究结果的发布”。它完全以美国为框架来表达其信息。签名者写了他们的角色“培育美国在推动我们的经济和全球竞争力的科学领域的领导地位”。他们认为，开放获取的授权“将严重损害经过同行评审的学术交流体系，从而加剧美国在研究和创新方面的领导地位”。他们敦促总统反对这一提议。签署这封信的许多人确实是美国的组织（例如，美国医学协会和美国内科医师学会）。但是其他人可能会认为他们的任务超出了“培养……美国科学领导地位”的范围。他们几乎可以肯定地说他们有全球职责，而不是狭义地局限于提高“美国竞争力”。这封信是由例如 签署这封信的许多人确实是美国的组织（例如，美国医学协会和美国内科医师学会）。但是其他人可能会认为他们的任务超出了“培养……美国科学领导地位”的范围。他们几乎可以肯定地说他们有全球职责，而不是狭义地局限于提高“美国竞争力”。这封信是由例如 签署这封信的许多人确实是美国的组织（例如，美国医学协会和美国内科医师学会）。但是其他人可能会认为他们的任务超出了“培养……美国科学领导地位”的范围。他们几乎可以肯定地说他们有全球职责，而不是狭义地局限于提高“美国竞争力”。这封信是由例如《新英格兰医学杂志》，威利，Wolters Kluwer和《柳叶刀》的出版商，爱思唯尔。在上周于柏林举行的欧洲学术出版年度会议上，柏林自由大学主席GünterZiegler教授嘲笑了出版商在这封信中使用的灾难性语言。他说：“没有美国科学或美国出版业。” 科学是真正的全球企业。他的谴责表明，近年来科学和科学出版的价值相距多远。