Shared publicly  - 
Just heard that it is Kent Anderson vs Charles Watkinson for president elect of the "Society for Scholarly Publishing". Anderson is the head honcho at "The Scholarly Kitchen" a publishing blog that I find distasteful in many ways, including most recently that they have as one of their bloggers the person the Heartland Institute has recruited to make anti-science teaching curricula. The Scholarly Kitchen and Kent Anderson have not expressed any concerns about Wojick being one of their bloggers (eg., see ). And in general Anderson is as far as I can tell decidedly anti open-access in many ways. Watkinson is the Director of Purdue University Press and seems pretty solid all around. If you have any voting role in SSP I encourage you to vote for Watkinson.
I did not translate all of my worries into words because they were not completely formed. One of the reasons for my concern was the feeling that Wojick might be using his position in a apparently scho...
Travis Graham's profile photoRoss Mounce's profile photoThomas Elrod's profile photoWilliam Roe's profile photo
Kent and Phil Davis deleted comments I left on their blog on a post about the Scholary Kitchen's independent voice where I pointed out Wojick's background. They've never done that before in all our years of at times vociferous disagreement.

It would appear they were trying to prevent a scandal before he came up for election.
I cannot comment about the SSP elections (I am not a member), but I must say that I know Kent Anderson very well and the accusations made against him are without foundation. Kent is a very good guy: bright, curious, innovative.
Thanks Joseph. Maybe you can help me here. Has there been any discussion at the Scholarly Kitchen (publicly or privately) about the role of Wojick in the Heartland Institutes planning new school curricula? Or is this somehow off limits?
I have not heard any such discussion, but I can't imagine that it is somehow off limits. We are geographically dispersed (I am currently based in California) and don't get to meet F2F as often as we would like. (BTW, I am a contributor to the Kitchen.) I simply cannot imagine either Kent or Phil trying to suppress ANY information. In fact, Phil's professional reputation is anchored in his exposing poor uses of data. I just don't think there is any kind of cover-up or editorial policy or anything else to be objected to.
Joseph, some of the "accusations" are just things that Kent has said himself. For example, I would not feel comfortable having as president of the SSP someone who seems to truly believe that the reason publishers demand authors' copyright is for the authors' own benefit, or that colour-figure charges are in authors' interests. To me, that's a dangerous disconnection with reality, and not someone who's going to help make the SSP look like an author-friendly organisation.

(I don't know what other accusations you might have heard. For what it's worth, I've never heard of anyone suggesting any impropriety on Kent's part, unless you count the comment deletion mention by William Gunn.)
Back when Kent posted a post about TSK's independence and integrity, I left some comments inquiring about Wojick. The deleted comments, and Phil's emailed reasons, are here:

I tried to leave one more even more toned down comment pointing out the discrepancy in David Wojick's bio at TSK and his actual affiliations, but that was never allowed through and I received no comment about why.
William, I do not know the circumstances of what you refer to. I wish to make a narrow point: I know Kent well and it is just not credible to say that he is attempting to shut down a discussion. He is a very good guy. And I have no view of the SSP election (I don't even know Charles Watkinson).
No one's credibility is in question here, because the situation is documented in the link I gave above.

So, Kent may or may not have known about this, but since he was the author of the post, he would have gotten an email about the comments left. I'm sure Kent is a nice guy and when I finally meet him in person we'll be able to share a beer, but it's just a fact that he's either letting Phil run wild as a moderator allowing and disallowing comments as he sees fit, suppressing the discussion I linked to above and who knows how many others, or he actively shut down the discussion himself.

With that being the case, I think one should ask themselves first, if the SSP wants TSK to serve as it's official mouthpiece, and second, if they want Kent, whose views are far to one end of the OA political spectrum, to represent the org.
And I too am not commenting about whether Kent is a nice guy or not. I disagree with numerous statements and comments he has made about publishing, peer review, open access, and more. If he is selected as president of SSP I think that could certainly be interpreted as support for many of his positions/statements. And I think it would be an implicit support for David Wojick who is still listed as a blogger at TSK and who I think certainly has some extreme positions in regard to global warming and science education.
Emendation: I noted in an earlier comment that I was not a member of SSP. After participating in this thread, I decided to join. Noteworthy? Probably not, but I wanted to make sure that the record was correct. No, this action does not in any way reflect on the content of the thread itself.
Happy to have inspired you in some small fashion, Joe.
Add a comment...