Hi Kathleen,
I agree with your conclusion---that “these diverse requirements cannot be supported effectively by any one large centralized infrastructure.” But as you know, I do respectfully disagree with continuing to characterize (as has been all too common in this community for too long) the quest for open as some contest between good and evil---between those who want open and those who want to slow progress, or between those who are working for the public good and those who only seek profit. There are a great many perspectives in this conversation that all deserve to be heard---people who approach open as a social justice issue; who say open but mean “replicability”; who see open as existing along a broad spectrum of outcomes; who see open as a vast collection of practice-based elements like open data, open repositories, open peer review, altmetrics; and so on. I’m certain that my three-sentence summary didn’t do justice to this diversity, in which case I encourage everyone to read our full report. The important theme here is that there is truly a lot of common ground in this conversation, and that creating a global commons is something we can all do together. Indeed, it is a goal that can only be achieved by working together. With best regards, Glenn Glenn Hampson Executive Director Science Communication Institute (SCI) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) From: Kathleen Shearer <m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 9:56 AM To: Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> Cc: Rob Johnson <rob.john...@research-consulting.com>; Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>; <radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk> <radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi2016...@googlegroups.com>; Anis Rahman <abu_rah...@sfu.ca> Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models Glenn, all, I don’t think there really is a large variation in current definitions of open; but there are some stakeholders who want to slow progress, and use this as an excuse :-( The issue of diversity is an important one, although not in the way that it is expressed by Glenn, (which is diversity in stakeholders goals - profit vs public good), but diversity of needs, capacities, priorities, languages, formats in different fields and countries. And these diverse requirements cannot be supported effectively by any one large centralized infrastructure, which will tend to cater to the most well resourced users (or the majority). While there are some international infrastructures that are appropriate, the “global commons” should also be composed of many localized infrastructures and services that are governed by, and can respond to, the needs of those local communities; and then we must figure out how these infrastructures can be interoperable through adoption of common standards that will allow us to share and communicate at the global level. This requires finding a delicate balance, a balance that possibly the UNESCO discussions can help to progress. As a UNESCO Open Science Partner, COAR brings this perspective to the table (as I’m sure some others will too). All the best, Kathleen Kathleen Shearer Executive Director Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) www.coar-repositories.org <http://www.coar-repositories.org> On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:47 AM, Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org <mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > wrote: Hi Heather, Anis, Rob, It’s also important to note the emerging UNESCO model, which will be presented to the UN General Assembly for consideration in late 2021. I suspect (and hope) this model will be more “polycentric” and “adaptive” than any of the current plans. As you know, many organizations have had an opportunity to submit comments on UNESCO’s plan; indeed, global consultations are still ongoing. OSI’s recommendations are listed here: https://bit.ly/2CL4Nm7. The executive summary is this: “Open” is a very diverse space. Not only do our definitions of open differ greatly, so too do our perceptions of the etymology of open (whether we use BOAI as the starting point or just one point among many). Also, critically, our open goals and motives differ greatly in this community; open progress and approaches vary by field of study; and different approaches have different focus points, principles, incentives, and financial considerations. In short, our challenge of creating a more open future for research defies one-size-fits all description, and it certainly defies one-size fits-all solution. Recognizing and respecting this diversity, OSI’s recommendations, which are based on five years of global consultations in collaboration with UNESCO, are that a just and workable global plan for the future of open must do the following: * DISCOVER critical missing pieces of the open scholarship puzzle so we can design our open reforms more effectively; * DESIGN, build and deploy an array of much needed open infrastructure tools to help accelerate the spread and adoption of open scholarship practices; * WORK TOGETHER on finding common ground perspective solutions that address key issues and concerns (see OSI’s Common Ground policy paper for more detail); and * REDOUBLE OUR COLLECTIVE EFFORTS to educate and listen to the research community about open solutions, and in doing so design solutions that better meet the needs of research. In pursuing these actions, the international community should: * Work and contribute together (everyone, including publishers); * Work on all pieces of the puzzle so we can clear a path for open to succeed; * Discover missing pieces of information to ensure our efforts are evidence-based; * Embrace diversity. No one group has a perfect understanding of the needs and challenges in this space, and different groups have different needs and challenges. * Develop big picture agreement on the goals ahead and common ground approaches to meet these goals; and * Help build UNESCO’s global open roadmap. Best regards, Glenn Glenn Hampson Executive Director <x-msg://9/sci.institute> Science Communication Institute (SCI) Program Director <x-msg://9/osiglobal.org> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) <x-msg://9/osiglobal.org> <image004.jpg> From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> <scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> > On Behalf Of Rob Johnson Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:42 PM To: Heather Morrison <heather.morri...@uottawa.ca <mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> >; scholc...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org <mailto:goal@eprints.org> >; radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk <mailto:radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk> Cc: Anis Rahman <abu_rah...@sfu.ca <mailto:abu_rah...@sfu.ca> > Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models Dear Heather (and Anis), Thanks for sharing this. I’ve also found Ostrom’s work on the commons helpful in assessing some of the emerging issues in this area, and you might be interested to read an article I wrote on Plan S and the commons, which also references Ostrom’s principles. I reached very similar conclusions to you, arguing that there would be a need for ‘polycentricity’ and ‘adaptative governance’ for the Plan to succeed – echoing your observations on the value of collective choice, adaptation to local conditions and ‘nested enterprises’. Johnson, Rob. 2019. “From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication”. Insights 32 (1): 5. DOI: <http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.453> http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.453 Best wishes, Rob Rob Johnson Director <image001.png> Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/intent/follow?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fabout%2Fresources%2Fbuttons®ion=follow_link&screen_name=rschconsulting&tw_p=followbutton&variant=2.0> @rschconsulting T: +44(0)115 896 7567 M: +44(0)779 511 7737 E: <mailto:rob.john...@research-consulting.com> rob.john...@research-consulting.com W: <http://www.research-consulting.com/> www.research-consulting.com Registered office: The Ingenuity Centre, University of Nottingham Innovation Park, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, United Kingdom Research Consulting Limited is a Company Registered in England and Wales, Reg No. 8376797 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This communication and the information contained in it are confidential and may be legally privileged. The content is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, it is hereby brought to your notice that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or dissemination, or alternatively the taking of any action in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may constitute grounds for action, either civil or criminal. From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> <scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> > On Behalf Of Heather Morrison Sent: 26 June 2020 01:16 To: scholc...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org <mailto:goal@eprints.org> >; radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk <mailto:radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk> Cc: Anis Rahman <abu_rah...@sfu.ca <mailto:abu_rah...@sfu.ca> > Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models Abstract: The context of this paper is an analysis of three emerging models for developing a global knowledge commons. The concept of a ‘global knowledge commons’ builds on the vision of the original Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) for the potential of combining academic tradition and the internet to remove various access barriers to the scholarly literature, thus laying the foundation for an unprecedented public good, uniting humanity in a common quest for knowledge. The global knowledge commons is a universal sharing of the knowledge of humankind, free for all to access (recognizing reasons for limiting sharing in some circumstances such as to protect individual privacy), and free for everyone qualified to contribute to. The three models are Plan S / cOAlition S, an EU-led initiative to transition all of scholarly publishing to an open access model on a short timeline; the Global Sustainability Coalition for Open Science Services (SCOSS), a recent initiative that builds on Ostrom’s study of the commons; and PubMedCentral (PMC) International, building on the preservation and access to the medical research literature provided by the U.S. National Institutes of Health to support other national repositories of funded research and exchange of materials between regions. The research will involve analysis of official policy and background briefing documents on the three initiatives and relevant historical projects, such as the Research Council U.K.’s block grants for article processing charges, the EU-led OA2020 initiative, Europe PMC and the short-lived PMC-Canada. Theoretical analysis will draw on Ostrom’s work on the commons, theories of development, under-development, epistemic / knowledge inequity and the concepts of Chan and colleagues (2011) on the importance of moving beyond north-to-south access to knowledge (charity model) to include south-to-south and south-to-north (equity model). This model analysis contributes to build a comparative view of transcontinental efforts for a global knowledge commons building with shared values of open access, sharing and collaboration, in contrast to the growing trend of commodification of scholarly knowledge evident in both traditional subscriptions / purchase-based scholarly publishing and in commercial open access publishing. We anticipate that our findings will indicate that a digital world of inclusiveness and reciprocity is possible, but cannot be taken for granted, and policy support is crucial. Global communication and information policy have much to contribute towards the development of a sustainable global knowledge commons. Full text: <https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/40664> https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/40664 Cite as: Morrison, H. & Rahman, R. (2020). Knowledge and equity: analysis of three models. International Association of Communication and Media Researchers (IAMCR) annual conference, July 2020. Comments are welcome, either on list or on the blog: <https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2020/06/26/knowledge-and-equity-analysis-of-three-models/> https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2020/06/26/knowledge-and-equity-analysis-of-three-models/ best, Dr. Heather Morrison Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa Cross-appointed, Department of Communication Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight Project sustainingknowledgecommons.org <http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca <mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
