Responses from Oxford University Press

First response, from Oxford University Press USA, 13 September 2011:

Use the Zoom function to view this document larger in the viewer. To see it larger in its own window, click the “Open in new window” button on the top right of the viewer. To download this file, click here.

Second response, from Oxford University Press UK, 7 November 2011:

Third response, from Oxford University Press USA, 14 May 2012. Please see our comments, referring to the highlighted sections of the text, below:

Petition Originators’ comments on May 14th Letter from Mr. Niko Pfund, President, Oxford University Press, US

1. ABOUT CITATIONS. Mr. Pfund’s statement says that “most books intended for college students”…“sometimes” use “lighter forms of citations and/or suggestions for further reading and bibliographies.”
We find the use of both “most” and “sometimes” difficult to understand; but the gist of this statement is that there is no requirement, as we have seen, that Oxford University Press books for classroom use include citations for evidence-based claims.

2. ABOUT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. In the second statement we highlight Mr. Pfund states that the Press’s review process “has proven reliable for highlighting any associations or affiliations that might influence or appear to influence an author’s perspective on their subject. We also hope the authors will make known to us any previous associations with organizations that directly relate to their research and publishing that may reasonably be viewed as having a disproportionate or inappropriate influence on their work.”
Mr. Pfund expresses the Press’s “hope” that it will learn of possible conflicts but says nothing about a required standard. He refers to an author’s associations, which might involve conflicts of interest, being made “known to us.” But Mr. Pfund does not state that readers of Oxford University Press books will be informed, which is what defines “disclosure.” An example, we noted, is Robert Paarlberg’s failure to disclose in Food Politics his role as an advisor to the CEO of the Monsanto Company.
Mr. Pfund also fails to explain how a review by “specialists in the relevant field” is possible if there are no citations by which a reviewer can learn the basis of evidence-based claims.

3. ABOUT ACCURATE REPRESENTATION O F A WORK IN PROMOTION. This section of the letter ends noting that the Press makes “clear to readers” that in “areas polarized by conflicting claims” the Press’s authors “needn’t” cover material “in neutral tones or give equal weight to all arguments.”
However, on the back cover of Food Politics, the promotional text implies the opposite. It reads: In areas of “conflicting claims and accusations from advocates of all sides, Paarlberg’s book maps this contested terrain.” Here the Press suggests a dispassionate overview that does not prepare the reader for a book that is narrowly argued through the use of highly selective evidence and the derision of opponents—all without citations.

Scholarly Standards at Risk