AAP/PSP response to the Nature story

The Professional/Scholarly Publishing (PSP) Division of the Association of American Publishers (AAP) has issued a response to Jim Giles' story in Nature and my blog posting about it.  Here's the response in its entirety: 

Not-for-profit and commercial publishers, as a group, have a responsibility to make the case on important issues regarding science and research.

It's unfortunate that reporters picked up on some early proposals that were not adopted and, regrettably, the Nature article has misrepresented what's really going on.

We and many others have legitimate concerns that government mandated open access could have unintended consequences for the scientific community – and anyone who relies on sound science. 

Scientists rely on a publishing system that delivers quality, technology, global dissemination and preservation of the record of science.  We believe that government mandated open access could put essential aspects of the system at risk and could undermine the quality, sustainability or independence of science.

That's why the AAP/PSP thinks it's important that all sides of the debate are heard.

The response is signed by Barbara J. Meredith, VP of the AAP/PSP.

Comment.  I've thanked Barbara Meredith privately for posting this response and I'm glad to thank her publicly as well.  However, the response doesn't give detail on where the Nature story is inaccurate.  Nor does it help those, like me, who have criticized the AAP based on the Nature version of events and who would like to retract any unjustified criticism.  I hope the AAP/PSP will tell us specifically which proposals described by Nature have not been adopted and which details in the story misrepresent what's really going on.