Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi Everyone,

 

I’m pleased to announce that the summary (and eminently more readable) version 
of OSI’s Common Ground paper is now available on the Emerald Open platform at 
https://emeraldopenresearch.com/documents/2-18. We welcome your feedback 
(emailing me directly is fine). If you have a lot of time on your hands and 
prefer the full-length version, it’s on the Mason Publishing Group website at 
https://journals.gmu.edu/index.php/osi/article/view/2725 and also on the Plan A 
website.

 

Also, I’m pleased to report that the OSI participants page has been updated to 
address the recent concerns that were expressed. Thank you for your help us 
improve our transparency and accountability---this was a valuable exercise.

 

With best regards,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



 

 

 

From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  On 
Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 12:58 PM
To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray 
Cc: Glenn Hampson ; Peter Murray-Rust 
; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
; samuel.moor...@gmail.com; The Open Scholarship Initiative 
; scholcomm 
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action

 

A lot of industry research is directly related to products and services so the 
results are proprietary. As an example, after I discovered the issue tree I was 
getting sole source federal contracts to do them, because only I knew how. So I 
never published anything on them.

Google does more R than NSF or DOE, somewhere around ten billion a year, but 
I doubt much is published. Might be fun to see how much.


David


On Apr 21, 2020, at 1:47 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu> > wrote:

One would expect that industry researchers are doing applied science almost 
exclusively while academic researchers include many who do theoretical science. 
I can't imagine that any industry researchers are investigating string theory 
or parallel universes!

  _  

From: Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> >
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:40 AM
To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu> >; 'Peter 
Murray-Rust' mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk> >; 'Global Open Access 
List (Successor of AmSci)' mailto:goal@eprints.org> >; 
samuel.moor...@gmail.com   
mailto:samuel.moor...@gmail.com> >
Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com> >; 'scholcomm' mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> >
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action 

 

Interesting idea Sandy. With regard to STM, I don’t have the exact numbers 
off-hand (I’ll look for them) but the general idea is that most STM research is 
conducted outside of academia, while most STM publishing happens in academia. 
I’m not sure what this means (maybe someone else here does)---that the type of 
research is different, or the communication approach is different (with more 
reliance on white papers in industry), neither, or both.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
 

 Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
 

 Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

 

 

 

 

 

From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org   
mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> > On 
Behalf Of Thatcher, Sanford Gray
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:05 AM
To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk> >; 'Global 
Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' mailto:goal@eprints.org> >; samuel.moor...@gmail.com 
 ; Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> >
Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com> >; 'scholcomm' mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> >
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action

 

I have a simple question (whose answer may, however, be complicated) perhaps 
relevant to defining what "common ground" means, and it is this: does anyone 
know how many researchers who publish regularly work outside of 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Thatcher, Sanford Gray]

Very interesting data! I guess I should clarify, though, that what I meant by 
HSS was what is taught in traditional liberal arts colleges and would then not 
include fields like business and management, biobehavioral studies, sports 
management,  journalism, and any number of other career-oriented fields that 
are typically offered at large public universities as undergraduate majors bu 
not at the Ivies, and schools like Amherst, Williams, Smith, Vassar, Oberlin, 
Bowdoin, Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr,  etc. If we focus on just those fields and not 
the much larger career-oriented disciplines, my guess would be that the 
original hypothesis could be sustained.

Sandy Thatcher

From: Shelley Allen 
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2020 7:50 AM
To: Glenn Hampson ; Thatcher, Sanford Gray 
; 'Peter Murray-Rust' ; 'Global Open Access List 
(Successor of AmSci)' ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com 

Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; 
'scholcomm' 
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action


Hi Sandy,



I recently looked at the proportion of Emerald’s content that comes from 
practice when assessing the impact of APCs on unfunded authors etc. If you’re 
not aware, Emerald publishes mostly SSH research.

There was high variation but some of our journals publish more than 20% 
contributions from researchers outside of traditional academic settings. I 
haven’t yet dived into the detail, but the journals with the most practitioner 
content for us are in the fields of Health and Social Care and Business and 
Management (mostly strategy).



Not to reject your hypothesis, but just to confirm that the picture looked more 
mixed (at least for Emerald) when I had a look at our author base.



Shelley



Shelley Allen

Head of Open Research | Emerald Publishing
Tel: +44 (0)1274 515633
Mob: +44 (0) 78542 84211

sal...@emerald.com | 
emeraldpublishing.com
 | 
emeraldinsight.com



Emerald Publishing Limited, Registered Office: Howard House, Wagon Lane, 
Bingley, BD16 1WA United Kingdom. Registered in England No. 3080506, VAT No. GB 
665 3593 06









From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org 
mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org>> On 
Behalf Of Thatcher, Sanford Gray
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:05 AM
To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk>>; 'Global Open 
Access List (Successor of AmSci)' mailto:goal@eprints.org>>; 
samuel.moor...@gmail.com; Glenn Hampson 
mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>>
Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' 
mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com>>; 'scholcomm' 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>>
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action



I have a simple question (whose answer may, however, be complicated) perhaps 
relevant to defining what "common ground" means, and it is this: does anyone 
know how many researchers who publish regularly work outside of institutions of 
higher education in STEM fields compared with HSS fields?  My wild guess would 
be 30%  or more for STEM compared with 5% or less for HSS. For the latter there 
would be places like the Institute for Advanced Study, which included among its 
permanent faculty such stellar scholars as Albert Hirschman and Michael Walzer, 
although most people in residence at the Institute have been visiting scholars 
whose home bases are usually universities. Everybody knows that there are a 
huge number of researchers active in private industry.



The reason I ask the question is that, in theory, higher education might itself 
be able to take care of all publishing in HSS fields through university presses 
or affiliated scholarly societies. It is perhaps no accident that only about 
20% of the publishing university presses do is in STEM fields (and only a 
handful of presses do most of it), where publishing has been dominated by large 
commercial publishers at least since WWII.



If this hypothesis were to prove correct, it suggests that "common ground" 
could mean mission-driven nonprofit publishing for HSS fields whereas for STEM 
fields the interests of commercial publishers would play a much greater role in 
determining what that common ground is.



A subhypothesis might separate out SS fields from H fields because many more 
commercial publishers are invested in 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Gary Hall]

Hi Florence,

Not sure Fifa is necessarily the best example, but I know what you mean:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/nov/06/fifa-scandal-fbi-new-york-trial-chuck-blazer-sepp-blatter

Gary

On 22/04/2020 01:52, Florence Piron wrote:
> I believe that FIFA is close to the idea of bibliodiversity that 
> Kathleen is advocating

-- 
Gary Hall
Professor of Media
Director of the Centre for Postdigital Cultures, Faculty of Arts & Humanities, 
Coventry University:
http://www.coventry.ac.uk/research/areas-of-research/postdigital-cultures

Director of Open Humanities Press: http://www.openhumanitiespress.org
Website http://www.garyhall.info

Latest:
‘F**k Business’ As Usual: Postdigital Politics in a Time of Pandemics III
http://garyhall.squarespace.com/journal/2020/4/21/fk-business-as-usual-postdigital-politics-in-a-time-of-pande.html















___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Dr Andrew A. Adams]

A fair amount of Google research does end up published. It's impossible to 
know what percentage. However, there is not the "publish or perish" pressure 
on Google researchers to publish. In most cases, they are encourged to engage 
with the broader research community via attendance at relevant conferences 
(academic, academic/industry, multi-stakeholder) as and when it's important 
for their research and personal career development. In the fields of privcy 
and security (one of my core areas) i regularly encounter Google-based 
researchers on technical and socio-technical issues at conferences and read 
their papers. In addition to a lack of external pressure to publish from 
their institution, they do have to get permission to submit from managers 
which in the case of conferences or special issues with tight deadlines, can 
lead the researchers to be less likely to publish. This is similar to many 
other tech-related companies such as telcos (I've worked directly with people 
at KDDI, the second largest Japanese telco).

Other major applied research organisations in tech vary a lot. MS reserachers 
are invovled in some fields quite heavily, but not in others. I don't believe 
i've ever seen a paper published by an Amazon researcher, and it's well-known 
that Amazon discourages company-based commits to FLOSS projects (but on a 
case-by-case basis allows individuals to submit code as individuals if they 
can make a case that it serves Amazon's purposes for the general code-base to 
include Amazon's own developments).


-- 
Dr Andrew A Adams  a...@meiji.ac.jp
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

David Wojick, 21/04/20 21:52:
> I dislike metaphors in reasoning but in the travel case the publishers are 
> more like the official who approves your visa to enter their country, for a 
> fee.

Not really, more like the taxi driver of a taxi cartel which for some 
reason is the only connection to the airport unless you're willing to walk.

Federico
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[David Wojick]

A lot of industry research is directly related to products and services so the 
results are proprietary. As an example, after I discovered the issue tree I was 
getting sole source federal contracts to do them, because only I knew how. So I 
never published anything on them.

Google does more R than NSF or DOE, somewhere around ten billion a year, but 
I doubt much is published. Might be fun to see how much.

David

> On Apr 21, 2020, at 1:47 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray  wrote:
> 
> One would expect that industry researchers are doing applied science almost 
> exclusively while academic researchers include many who do theoretical 
> science. I can't imagine that any industry researchers are investigating 
> string theory or parallel universes!
> From: Glenn Hampson 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:40 AM
> To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; 'Peter Murray-Rust' 
> ; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' 
> ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com 
> Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; 
> 'scholcomm' 
> Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> Communications: A Call for Action
>  
> Interesting idea Sandy. With regard to STM, I don’t have the exact numbers 
> off-hand (I’ll look for them) but the general idea is that most STM research 
> is conducted outside of academia, while most STM publishing happens in 
> academia. I’m not sure what this means (maybe someone else here does)---that 
> the type of research is different, or the communication approach is different 
> (with more reliance on white papers in industry), neither, or both.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Glenn
>  
>  
> Glenn Hampson
> Executive Director
> Science Communication Institute (SCI)
> Program Director
> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
> 
>  
>  
>  
> From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  On 
> Behalf Of Thatcher, Sanford Gray
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:05 AM
> To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' ; 'Global Open Access List 
> (Successor of AmSci)' ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com; Glenn 
> Hampson 
> Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; 
> 'scholcomm' 
> Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> Communications: A Call for Action
>  
> I have a simple question (whose answer may, however, be complicated) perhaps 
> relevant to defining what "common ground" means, and it is this: does anyone 
> know how many researchers who publish regularly work outside of institutions 
> of higher education in STEM fields compared with HSS fields?  My wild guess 
> would be 30%  or more for STEM compared with 5% or less for HSS. For the 
> latter there would be places like the Institute for Advanced Study, which 
> included among its permanent faculty such stellar scholars as Albert 
> Hirschman and Michael Walzer, although most people in residence at the 
> Institute have been visiting scholars whose home bases are usually 
> universities. Everybody knows that there are a huge number of researchers 
> active in private industry.
>  
> The reason I ask the question is that, in theory, higher education might 
> itself be able to take care of all publishing in HSS fields through 
> university presses or affiliated scholarly societies. It is perhaps no 
> accident that only about 20% of the publishing university presses do is in 
> STEM fields (and only a handful of presses do most of it), where publishing 
> has been dominated by large commercial publishers at least since WWII.
>  
> If this hypothesis were to prove correct, it suggests that "common ground" 
> could mean mission-driven nonprofit publishing for HSS fields whereas for 
> STEM fields the interests of commercial publishers would play a much greater 
> role in determining what that common ground is.
>  
> A subhypothesis might separate out SS fields from H fields because many more 
> commercial publishers are invested in social sciences than in the humanities.
>  
> Sandy Thatcher
> From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  on 
> behalf of Glenn Hampson 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:14 AM
> To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' ; 'Global Open Access List 
> (Successor of AmSci)' ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com 
> 
> Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; 
> 'scholcomm' 
> Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> Communications: A Call for Action
>  
> Hi Sam, Peter,
>  
> Thanks so much for your emails. I’m sorry for the delay in responding---we’re 
> a half a world apart and I’m just getting my morning coffee 
>  
> You ask a number of important questions. I’ll try to respond concisely, and 
> then just please let me know (directly or on-list) if you need more 
> information:
>  
> High level: OSI’s purpose was (and remains) to bring together 
> leaders in the scholarly communication space to share perspectives. A good 
> number of the OSI participants (plus alumni and observers) have been 
> executive directors of nonprofits, vice-presidents of universities, 
> vice-presidents of publishing companies, library deans, directors of 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[David Wojick]

I dislike metaphors in reasoning but in the travel case the publishers are more 
like the official who approves your visa to enter their country, for a fee. The 
idea that one can restructure an industry without consulting the leading 
producers strikes me as unlikely to work. It is a coup and they are notable 
limited in success.

David

> On Apr 21, 2020, at 2:15 PM, Heather Piwowar  wrote:
> 
> 
> I believe the ones who "really live and breathe these issues on a daily 
> basis" are actually the researchers and public and policy makers who can't 
> get access to research they need to improve society.
> 
> They, and many others who share their views (myself included), don't 
> participate in the OSI discussions because they just plain start from the 
> wrong place.  The "needs" of publishers shouldn't matter any more than the 
> "needs" of travel agents mattered, I believe.   
> 
> Some of us are listed in the OSI website because we dipped our toe in before 
> realizing that it wasn't a group where our time was best spent.
> 
> Heather
> 
> ---
> Heather Piwowar, cofounder
> Our Research: We build tools to make scholarly research more open, connected, 
> and reusable—for everyone.
> follow at @researchremix, @our_research, and @unpaywall
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Glenn Hampson 
>>  wrote:
>> Hi Peter,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Sorry. The web list can be hard to parse because it’s alphabetical by first 
>> name and not sortable by stakeholder group, plus it hasn’t been updated in a 
>> while. But there are actually around a dozen active researchers in OSI 
>> (actually more---that’s just their “primary” designation for “accounting” 
>> purposes but they can also be a the head of a research organization and an 
>> active researcher at the same time), several medical doctors (but again, 
>> this isn’t a stakeholder group---these folks may instead be categorized as a 
>> journal editor or university official), and representatives from 28 
>> countries in all regions of the world. Most of our current and former OSIers 
>> are from the US and Europe, but broadening our international representation 
>> is something we’ve been working on for a while.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> In the common ground report you’ll find a table showing the most recent 
>> count of current participants and their stakeholder “designations” (it’s 
>> more detailed than the pie chart from before). This said, as Kathleen has 
>> noted, one shouldn’t read into this that x% of the conversation on the OSI 
>> list comes from library officials, or y% from commercial publishers. I would 
>> say that most of the ongoing deliberation on the list is between scholarly 
>> communication analysts and library leaders who really live and breathe these 
>> issues on a daily basis.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Stakeholder group
>> 
>> Number of participants (Dec 2019)
>> 
>> Percent of OSI group
>> 
>> Research universities
>> 
>> 56
>> 
>> 14%
>> 
>> Libraries & library groups
>> 
>> 51
>> 
>> 13%
>> 
>> Commercial publishers
>> 
>> 39
>> 
>> 10%
>> 
>> Open groups and publishers
>> 
>> 37
>> 
>> 9%
>> 
>> Industry analysts
>> 
>> 36
>> 
>> 9%
>> 
>> Government policy groups
>> 
>> 35
>> 
>> 9%
>> 
>> Non-university research institutions
>> 
>> 21
>> 
>> 5%
>> 
>> Scholcomm experts
>> 
>> 20
>> 
>> 5%
>> 
>> Scholarly societies
>> 
>> 19
>> 
>> 5%
>> 
>> Faculty groups
>> 
>> 16
>> 
>> 4%
>> 
>> University publishers
>> 
>> 16
>> 
>> 4%
>> 
>> Funders
>> 
>> 14
>> 
>> 4%
>> 
>> Active researchers
>> 
>> 9
>> 
>> 2%
>> 
>> Editors
>> 
>> 8
>> 
>> 2%
>> 
>> Journalists
>> 
>> 6
>> 
>> 2%
>> 
>> Tech industry
>> 
>> 5
>> 
>> 1%
>> 
>> Infrastructure groups
>> 
>> 3
>> 
>> 1%
>> 
>> Other universities
>> 
>> 2
>> 
>> 1%
>> 
>> Elected officials
>> 
>> 1
>> 
>> 0%
>> 
>> TOTAL
>> 
>> 394
>> 
>> 100%
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I hope this helps.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Glenn
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Glenn Hampson
>> Executive Director
>> Science Communication Institute (SCI)
>> Program Director
>> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Peter Murray-Rust  
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:23 AM
>> To: Glenn Hampson 
>> Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; Samuel 
>> Moore ; The Open Scholarship Initiative 
>> ; scholcomm 
>> Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
>> Communications: A Call for Action
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks for outlining this. There are 300-400 people on the OSI list. I could 
>> not find:
>> * any researchers
>> * any doctors/medics
>> * anyone from the Global South
>> 
>> But there are 9 directors from Elsevier.
>> And everyone else is director of this, chief of that, CEO of the other.
>> 
>> In the early days of OA in UK The 
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-open-up-publicly-funded-research
>>  Finch Report invited the closed access publishers to help reform 
>> publishing. For many of us this was a a complete betrayal of the radicalism 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Glenn Hampson]

Good point Heather---which precisely why we’ve been trying to get more active 
researchers into the group. “Researchers” are a highly diverse group, though, 
with needs varying by field, institution, region, career stage, etc. It’s going 
to take a unique effort to understand these needs better (part of what Plan A 
hopes to address).

 

Best regards,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



 

From: Heather Piwowar  
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:15 AM
To: Glenn Hampson 
Cc: Peter Murray-Rust ; Global Open Access List (Successor of 
AmSci) ; Samuel Moore ; The Open 
Scholarship Initiative ; scholcomm 

Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action

 

 

I believe the ones who "really live and breathe these issues on a daily basis" 
are actually the researchers and public and policy makers who can't get access 
to research they need to improve society.

 

They, and many others who share their views (myself included), don't 
participate in the OSI discussions because they just plain start from the wrong 
place.  The "needs" of publishers shouldn't matter any more than the "needs" of 
travel agents mattered, I believe.   

 

Some of us are listed in the OSI website because we dipped our toe in before 
realizing that it wasn't a group where our time was best spent.

 

Heather




---

Heather Piwowar, cofounder

  Our Research: We build tools to make scholarly 
research more open, connected, and reusable—for everyone.

follow at   @researchremix,  
 @our_research, and @ 
 unpaywall

 

 

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > wrote:

Hi Peter,

 

Sorry. The web list can be hard to parse because it’s alphabetical by first 
name and not sortable by stakeholder group, plus it hasn’t been updated in a 
while. But there are actually around a dozen active researchers in OSI 
(actually more---that’s just their “primary” designation for “accounting” 
purposes but they can also be a the head of a research organization and an 
active researcher at the same time), several medical doctors (but again, this 
isn’t a stakeholder group---these folks may instead be categorized as a journal 
editor or university official), and representatives from 28 countries in all 
regions of the world. Most of our current and former OSIers are from the US and 
Europe, but broadening our international representation is something we’ve been 
working on for a while. 

 

In the common ground report you’ll find a table showing the most recent count 
of current participants and their stakeholder “designations” (it’s more 
detailed than the pie chart from before). This said, as Kathleen has noted, one 
shouldn’t read into this that x% of the conversation on the OSI list comes from 
library officials, or y% from commercial publishers. I would say that most of 
the ongoing deliberation on the list is between scholarly communication 
analysts and library leaders who really live and breathe these issues on a 
daily basis.

 


Stakeholder group

Number of participants (Dec 2019)

Percent of OSI group


Research universities

56

14%


Libraries & library groups

51

13%


Commercial publishers

39

10%


Open groups and publishers

37

9%


Industry analysts

36

9%


Government policy groups

35

9%


Non-university research institutions

21

5%


Scholcomm experts

20

5%


Scholarly societies

19

5%


Faculty groups

16

4%


University publishers

16

4%


Funders

14

4%


Active researchers

9

2%


Editors

8

2%


Journalists

6

2%


Tech industry

5

1%


Infrastructure groups

3

1%


Other universities

2

1%


Elected officials

1

0%


TOTAL

394

100%

 

I hope this helps.

 

Best regards,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
  Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
  Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

  

 

 

 

From: Peter Murray-Rust mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk> > 
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:23 AM
To: Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> >
Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) mailto:goal@eprints.org> >; Samuel Moore mailto:samuel.moor...@gmail.com> >; The Open Scholarship Initiative 
mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com> >; scholcomm 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> >
Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action

 

Thanks for outlining this. There are 300-400 people on the OSI list. I could 
not find:
* any researchers
* any doctors/medics
* anyone from the Global South

But there are 9 directors from Elsevier.
And everyone else is director of this, chief of that, CEO of the other.

In the early days of OA in 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Heather Piwowar]

I believe the ones who "really live and breathe these issues on a daily
basis" are actually the researchers and public and policy makers who can't
get access to research they need to improve society.

They, and many others who share their views (myself included), don't
participate in the OSI discussions because they just plain start from the
wrong place.  The "needs" of publishers shouldn't matter any more than the
"needs" of travel agents mattered, I believe.

Some of us are listed in the OSI website because we dipped our toe in
before realizing that it wasn't a group where our time was best spent.

Heather

---

Heather Piwowar, cofounder

Our Research : We build tools to make scholarly
research more open, connected, and reusable—for everyone.
follow at @researchremix , @our_research
, and @unpaywall



On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Glenn Hampson 
wrote:

> Hi Peter,
>
>
>
> Sorry. The web list can be hard to parse because it’s alphabetical by
> first name and not sortable by stakeholder group, plus it hasn’t been
> updated in a while. But there are actually around a dozen active
> researchers in OSI (actually more---that’s just their “primary” designation
> for “accounting” purposes but they can also be a the head of a research
> organization and an active researcher at the same time), several medical
> doctors (but again, this isn’t a stakeholder group---these folks may
> instead be categorized as a journal editor or university official), and
> representatives from 28 countries in all regions of the world. Most of our
> current and former OSIers are from the US and Europe, but broadening our
> international representation is something we’ve been working on for a
> while.
>
>
>
> In the common ground report you’ll find a table showing the most recent
> count of current participants and their stakeholder “designations” (it’s
> more detailed than the pie chart from before). This said, as Kathleen has
> noted, one shouldn’t read into this that x% of the conversation on the OSI
> list comes from library officials, or y% from commercial publishers. I
> would say that most of the ongoing deliberation on the list is between
> scholarly communication analysts and library leaders who really live and
> breathe these issues on a daily basis.
>
>
>
> *Stakeholder group*
>
> *Number of participants (Dec 2019)*
>
> *Percent of OSI group*
>
> Research universities
>
> 56
>
> 14%
>
> Libraries & library groups
>
> 51
>
> 13%
>
> Commercial publishers
>
> 39
>
> 10%
>
> Open groups and publishers
>
> 37
>
> 9%
>
> Industry analysts
>
> 36
>
> 9%
>
> Government policy groups
>
> 35
>
> 9%
>
> Non-university research institutions
>
> 21
>
> 5%
>
> Scholcomm experts
>
> 20
>
> 5%
>
> Scholarly societies
>
> 19
>
> 5%
>
> Faculty groups
>
> 16
>
> 4%
>
> University publishers
>
> 16
>
> 4%
>
> Funders
>
> 14
>
> 4%
>
> Active researchers
>
> 9
>
> 2%
>
> Editors
>
> 8
>
> 2%
>
> Journalists
>
> 6
>
> 2%
>
> Tech industry
>
> 5
>
> 1%
>
> Infrastructure groups
>
> 3
>
> 1%
>
> Other universities
>
> 2
>
> 1%
>
> Elected officials
>
> 1
>
> 0%
>
> TOTAL
>
> 394
>
> 100%
>
>
>
> I hope this helps.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
>
> *Glenn Hampson*
> *Executive Director*
> *Science Communication Institute (SCI) *
>
> *Program Director**Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
> *
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Peter Murray-Rust 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:23 AM
> *To:* Glenn Hampson 
> *Cc:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ;
> Samuel Moore ; The Open Scholarship Initiative <
> osi2016...@googlegroups.com>; scholcomm 
> *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly
> Communications: A Call for Action
>
>
>
> Thanks for outlining this. There are 300-400 people on the OSI list. I
> could not find:
> * any researchers
> * any doctors/medics
> * anyone from the Global South
>
> But there are 9 directors from Elsevier.
> And everyone else is director of this, chief of that, CEO of the other.
>
> In the early days of OA in UK The
> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-open-up-publicly-funded-research
>  Finch
> Report invited the closed access publishers to help reform publishing. For
> many of us this was a a complete betrayal of the radicalism required. No
> wonder there has been to progress. That articles are priced at 3500 Euro.
> That 80% of the social distancing literature is behind a paywall.
> This mega committee is a repeat. It cannot reform. It will legitimise the
> next digital landgrab by the vested interests.
> There are publishers who create documents (Read Cube) that are
> specifically designed to make it impossible to re-use knowledge. And no one
> except a few of us care.
> m.
>
> The business model of megapublishers is to make it as hard as possible to
> read 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi Peter,

 

Sorry. The web list can be hard to parse because it’s alphabetical by first 
name and not sortable by stakeholder group, plus it hasn’t been updated in a 
while. But there are actually around a dozen active researchers in OSI 
(actually more---that’s just their “primary” designation for “accounting” 
purposes but they can also be a the head of a research organization and an 
active researcher at the same time), several medical doctors (but again, this 
isn’t a stakeholder group---these folks may instead be categorized as a journal 
editor or university official), and representatives from 28 countries in all 
regions of the world. Most of our current and former OSIers are from the US and 
Europe, but broadening our international representation is something we’ve been 
working on for a while. 

 

In the common ground report you’ll find a table showing the most recent count 
of current participants and their stakeholder “designations” (it’s more 
detailed than the pie chart from before). This said, as Kathleen has noted, one 
shouldn’t read into this that x% of the conversation on the OSI list comes from 
library officials, or y% from commercial publishers. I would say that most of 
the ongoing deliberation on the list is between scholarly communication 
analysts and library leaders who really live and breathe these issues on a 
daily basis.

 


Stakeholder group

Number of participants (Dec 2019)

Percent of OSI group


Research universities

56

14%


Libraries & library groups

51

13%


Commercial publishers

39

10%


Open groups and publishers

37

9%


Industry analysts

36

9%


Government policy groups

35

9%


Non-university research institutions

21

5%


Scholcomm experts

20

5%


Scholarly societies

19

5%


Faculty groups

16

4%


University publishers

16

4%


Funders

14

4%


Active researchers

9

2%


Editors

8

2%


Journalists

6

2%


Tech industry

5

1%


Infrastructure groups

3

1%


Other universities

2

1%


Elected officials

1

0%


TOTAL

394

100%

 

I hope this helps.

 

Best regards,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



 

 

 

From: Peter Murray-Rust  
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:23 AM
To: Glenn Hampson 
Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; Samuel 
Moore ; The Open Scholarship Initiative 
; scholcomm 
Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action

 

Thanks for outlining this. There are 300-400 people on the OSI list. I could 
not find:
* any researchers
* any doctors/medics
* anyone from the Global South

But there are 9 directors from Elsevier.
And everyone else is director of this, chief of that, CEO of the other.

In the early days of OA in UK The 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-open-up-publicly-funded-research
 Finch Report invited the closed access publishers to help reform publishing. 
For many of us this was a a complete betrayal of the radicalism required. No 
wonder there has been to progress. That articles are priced at 3500 Euro. That 
80% of the social distancing literature is behind a paywall. 
This mega committee is a repeat. It cannot reform. It will legitimise the next 
digital landgrab by the vested interests. 
There are publishers who create documents (Read Cube) that are specifically 
designed to make it impossible to re-use knowledge. And no one except a few of 
us care. 
m. 

The business model of megapublishers is to make it as hard as possible to read 
science. And then collect rent. In software the world works towards 
interoperable solutions ; in "publishing"  we have 100+ competing groups who 
try as hard as possible to make universal knowledge available.

In the coronavirus pandemic we need global knowledge. The person who does this 
without publisher control will be sued and possibly jailed. The only person who 
has liberated science will be jailed if she sets foot in USA.

This is not fantasy. I have seen graduate students careers destroyed by 
publishers, with no support from their institutions. I myself have had pushback 
for text and data mining; I have had no practical support from anyone in the 
Academic system. Although they got the law changed to allow TDM, no 
Universities in UK dare do anything the publishers might frown on.

I've been on and seen initiative after initiative. I've launched one (Panton 
Principles) - it probably actually made some difference to protect data before 
the publishers thought of grabbing it. But most inituiatives achieve nothing. 
And if they are stuffed with publishers all they do is increase the prices they 
charge for OA (like DEAL, PlanS and the rest). OA is just a way of milking the 
taxpayer.

The only thing that will change this is building a better system with a fresh 
start, almost certainly with young radical people. And Coronavirus might just 
do that when citizens realize 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Thatcher, Sanford Gray]

One would expect that industry researchers are doing applied science almost 
exclusively while academic researchers include many who do theoretical science. 
I can't imagine that any industry researchers are investigating string theory 
or parallel universes!

From: Glenn Hampson 
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:40 AM
To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; 'Peter Murray-Rust' 
; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' 
; samuel.moor...@gmail.com 
Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; 
'scholcomm' 
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action


Interesting idea Sandy. With regard to STM, I don’t have the exact numbers 
off-hand (I’ll look for them) but the general idea is that most STM research is 
conducted outside of academia, while most STM publishing happens in academia. 
I’m not sure what this means (maybe someone else here does)---that the type of 
research is different, or the communication approach is different (with more 
reliance on white papers in industry), neither, or both.



Best,



Glenn





Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute 
(SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative 
(OSI)

[cid:image005.jpg@01D617C0.EF9CF910]







From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  On 
Behalf Of Thatcher, Sanford Gray
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:05 AM
To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' ; 'Global Open Access List (Successor 
of AmSci)' ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com; Glenn Hampson 

Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; 
'scholcomm' 
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action



I have a simple question (whose answer may, however, be complicated) perhaps 
relevant to defining what "common ground" means, and it is this: does anyone 
know how many researchers who publish regularly work outside of institutions of 
higher education in STEM fields compared with HSS fields?  My wild guess would 
be 30%  or more for STEM compared with 5% or less for HSS. For the latter there 
would be places like the Institute for Advanced Study, which included among its 
permanent faculty such stellar scholars as Albert Hirschman and Michael Walzer, 
although most people in residence at the Institute have been visiting scholars 
whose home bases are usually universities. Everybody knows that there are a 
huge number of researchers active in private industry.



The reason I ask the question is that, in theory, higher education might itself 
be able to take care of all publishing in HSS fields through university presses 
or affiliated scholarly societies. It is perhaps no accident that only about 
20% of the publishing university presses do is in STEM fields (and only a 
handful of presses do most of it), where publishing has been dominated by large 
commercial publishers at least since WWII.



If this hypothesis were to prove correct, it suggests that "common ground" 
could mean mission-driven nonprofit publishing for HSS fields whereas for STEM 
fields the interests of commercial publishers would play a much greater role in 
determining what that common ground is.



A subhypothesis might separate out SS fields from H fields because many more 
commercial publishers are invested in social sciences than in the humanities.



Sandy Thatcher



From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org 
mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org>> on 
behalf of Glenn Hampson 
mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:14 AM
To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk>>; 'Global Open 
Access List (Successor of AmSci)' mailto:goal@eprints.org>>; 
samuel.moor...@gmail.com 
mailto:samuel.moor...@gmail.com>>
Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' 
mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com>>; 'scholcomm' 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>>
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action



Hi Sam, Peter,



Thanks so much for your emails. I’m sorry for the delay in responding---we’re a 
half a world apart and I’m just getting my 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi Kathleen,

 

It’s definitely a challenge to try to relay the lessons of experience from OSI 
while at the same time trying to make clear that there are a wide variety of 
opinions inside this group. I’ve deliberately tried to avoid making statements 
like “OSI believes” in our reports. I apologize if/when these slip through my 
emails and less formal communications.

 

I’ll go ahead and remove your name from the OSI website right now---a few 
others have requested this over the years as well (as noted on the site). 
Thanks for the notice.

 

Best regards,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



 

 

From: osi2016...@googlegroups.com  On Behalf Of 
Kathleen Shearer
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:13 AM
To: Glenn Hampson 
Cc: Peter Murray-Rust ; Global Open Access List (Successor of 
AmSci) ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com; The Open Scholarship 
Initiative ; scholcomm 
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action

 

Glen,

 

You are woefully misrepresenting the OSI “community” to the world.

 

As someone that was invited and attended one OSI meeting (and then was added to 
the mailing list), that does not imply that I am part of the OSI community. Nor 
does in mean that I participated in the development of this document.

 

It is disingenuous to state that all of the people who once attended one of the 
OSI meetings are supportive of what you are doing.

 

I actually disagree with your plan and take great exception to your use of my 
name and organization on the website. I’m sure that I am not the only one.

 

When you talk about your community, you should be referring to only the people 
who have signed on to the plan. I see there are only a few individuals and 
organizations that have endorsed it so far.

 

Best, Kathleen

 

 

 

Kathleen Shearer

Executive Director

Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)

www.coar-repositories.org  

 

 





On Apr 21, 2020, at 11:14 AM, Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > wrote:

 

Hi Sam, Peter,

 

Thanks so much for your emails. I’m sorry for the delay in responding---we’re a 
half a world apart and I’m just getting my morning coffee 

 

You ask a number of important questions. I’ll try to respond concisely, and 
then just please let me know (directly or on-list) if you need more information:

 

1.  High level: OSI’s purpose was (and remains) to bring 
together leaders in the scholarly communication space to share perspectives. A 
good number of the OSI participants (plus alumni and observers) have been 
executive directors of nonprofits, vice-presidents of universities, 
vice-presidents of publishing companies, library deans, directors of research 
institutes, journal editors, and so on. Also represented are leaders in the 
open space, and leaders of “born open” journals and efforts who are household 
names in this space. You can see a rather outdated (sorry) list of OSI 
partcipants, alumni and observers at http://osiglobal.org/osi-participants/; a 
graphic is also pasted here (which may or may not survive the emailing). About 
18 different stakeholder groups are represented in all---covering 250+ 
institutions and 28 countries---on a quota system that gives the most weight to 
university representation.

 

The intent here was not at all to bypass grassroots activism. Quite to the 
contrary, the intent was to cut to the chase---to bring together the leaders in 
this space who could speak most knowledgably about the issues and challenges at 
hand, and work together directly (instead of through intermediaries) to find 
common ground. We are always adding people to the group. If you’re interested 
in participating, please just say the word. 

 

2.  Going forward: OSI’s work has been rich and fascinating. But OSI may 
not end up being in charge of Plan A---tbd. This plan represents the best 
thinking and recommendations of OSI, but whether these recommendations go 
anywhere is going to depend on Plan A signatories. You’re right---no plan, 
however well-intended, can be foisted on the rest of the world unless it is 
truly inclusive. That’s been a primary concern of everyone in OSI since day 
1---that even though this is a remarkably diverse group, it simply isn’t set up 
to be a policy making body and inclusive as it is, still doesn’t include enough 
representation from researchers and from all parts of the globe. It’s a 
wonderful deliberative body, but we can’t decide anything amongst ourselves, 
which is alternately enlightening and frustrating. It’s going to take a 
different deliberative mechanism to create common ground policy (which is why 
we’re also supporting UNESCO with their roadmap effort---they have the tools 
and minister-level involvement to make policy). Our hope is that Plan A 
signatories will lead this 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Peter Murray-Rust]

Thanks for outlining this. There are 300-400 people on the OSI list. I
could not find:
* any researchers
* any doctors/medics
* anyone from the Global South

But there are 9 directors from Elsevier.
And everyone else is director of this, chief of that, CEO of the other.

In the early days of OA in UK The
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-open-up-publicly-funded-research
Finch
Report invited the closed access publishers to help reform publishing. For
many of us this was a a complete betrayal of the radicalism required. No
wonder there has been to progress. That articles are priced at 3500 Euro.
That 80% of the social distancing literature is behind a paywall.
This mega committee is a repeat. It cannot reform. It will legitimise the
next digital landgrab by the vested interests.
There are publishers who create documents (Read Cube) that are specifically
designed to make it impossible to re-use knowledge. And no one except a few
of us care.
m.
The business model of megapublishers is to make it as hard as possible to
read science. And then collect rent. In software the world works towards
interoperable solutions ; in "publishing"  we have 100+ competing groups
who try as hard as possible to make universal knowledge available.

In the coronavirus pandemic we need global knowledge. The person who does
this without publisher control will be sued and possibly jailed. The only
person who has liberated science will be jailed if she sets foot in USA.

This is not fantasy. I have seen graduate students careers destroyed by
publishers, with no support from their institutions. I myself have had
pushback for text and data mining; I have had no practical support from
anyone in the Academic system. Although they got the law changed to allow
TDM, no Universities in UK dare do anything the publishers might frown on.

I've been on and seen initiative after initiative. I've launched one
(Panton Principles) - it probably actually made some difference to protect
data before the publishers thought of grabbing it. But most
inituiatives achieve nothing. And if they are stuffed with publishers all
they do is increase the prices they charge for OA (like DEAL, PlanS and the
rest). OA is just a way of milking the taxpayer.

The only thing that will change this is building a better system with a
fresh start, almost certainly with young radical people. And Coronavirus
might just do that when citizens realize how badly they've been robbed.

P.



-- 
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign
with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Kathleen Shearer]

Glen,

You are woefully misrepresenting the OSI “community” to the world.

As someone that was invited and attended one OSI meeting (and then was added to 
the mailing list), that does not imply that I am part of the OSI community. Nor 
does in mean that I participated in the development of this document.

It is disingenuous to state that all of the people who once attended one of the 
OSI meetings are supportive of what you are doing.

I actually disagree with your plan and take great exception to your use of my 
name and organization on the website. I’m sure that I am not the only one.

When you talk about your community, you should be referring to only the people 
who have signed on to the plan. I see there are only a few individuals and 
organizations that have endorsed it so far.

Best, Kathleen



Kathleen Shearer
Executive Director
Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)
www.coar-repositories.org



> On Apr 21, 2020, at 11:14 AM, Glenn Hampson  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sam, Peter,
>  
> Thanks so much for your emails. I’m sorry for the delay in responding---we’re 
> a half a world apart and I’m just getting my morning coffee 
>  
> You ask a number of important questions. I’ll try to respond concisely, and 
> then just please let me know (directly or on-list) if you need more 
> information:
>  
> High level: OSI’s purpose was (and remains) to bring together 
> leaders in the scholarly communication space to share perspectives. A good 
> number of the OSI participants (plus alumni and observers) have been 
> executive directors of nonprofits, vice-presidents of universities, 
> vice-presidents of publishing companies, library deans, directors of research 
> institutes, journal editors, and so on. Also represented are leaders in the 
> open space, and leaders of “born open” journals and efforts who are household 
> names in this space. You can see a rather outdated (sorry) list of OSI 
> partcipants, alumni and observers at http://osiglobal.org/osi-participants/ 
> ; a graphic is also pasted here 
> (which may or may not survive the emailing). About 18 different stakeholder 
> groups are represented in all---covering 250+ institutions and 28 
> countries---on a quota system that gives the most weight to university 
> representation.
>  
> The intent here was not at all to bypass grassroots activism. Quite to the 
> contrary, the intent was to cut to the chase---to bring together the leaders 
> in this space who could speak most knowledgably about the issues and 
> challenges at hand, and work together directly (instead of through 
> intermediaries) to find common ground. We are always adding people to the 
> group. If you’re interested in participating, please just say the word. 
>  
> Going forward: OSI’s work has been rich and fascinating. But OSI may not end 
> up being in charge of Plan A---tbd. This plan represents the best thinking 
> and recommendations of OSI, but whether these recommendations go anywhere is 
> going to depend on Plan A signatories. You’re right---no plan, however 
> well-intended, can be foisted on the rest of the world unless it is truly 
> inclusive. That’s been a primary concern of everyone in OSI since day 
> 1---that even though this is a remarkably diverse group, it simply isn’t set 
> up to be a policy making body and inclusive as it is, still doesn’t include 
> enough representation from researchers and from all parts of the globe. It’s 
> a wonderful deliberative body, but we can’t decide anything amongst 
> ourselves, which is alternately enlightening and frustrating. It’s going to 
> take a different deliberative mechanism to create common ground policy (which 
> is why we’re also supporting UNESCO with their roadmap effort---they have the 
> tools and minister-level involvement to make policy). Our hope is that Plan A 
> signatories will lead this effort---we’ll know more in the coming months 
> about whether we have enough signatories to do this, whether we have the 
> budget, etc. The “financial” tab on the Plan A site describes what we’ll be 
> able to do with various levels of funding.
>  
> That’s my short answer. Does this help? I’m happy to elaborate---probably 
> off-list unless there’s a groundswell of support for having me send another 
> 5000 word email to the list 
>  
> Thanks again for your interest and best regards,
>  
> Glenn
>  
>  
> Glenn Hampson
> Executive Director
> Science Communication Institute (SCI) 
> Program Director
> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Peter Murray-Rust mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk>> 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 3:21 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)  >
> Cc: Glenn Hampson  >; The Open Scholarship Initiative 
> mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com>>; scholcomm 
> mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>>
> Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:48 AM Samuel Moore 
wrote:

I share Sam's concerns.


> I’d be interested to hear more on the 'high-level' focus of your group and
> whether you see it as antagonistic to non-high-level approaches. Put
> another way, are you not simply looking for common ground between the
> groups who are already in charge of scholarly communication (policymakers,
> commercial publishers, senior figures, etc.) to the exclusion of those
> operating at the margins?
>
> I agree,
I am concerned about several demographics:
* citizens outside academia
* young people
* the Global South.

I am an old white anglophone male so I cannot speak other that to P.urge
that the initiative is taken by different demographics.
I also think the effect of the capitalist publishing industry, whether
closed or Open Access has been hugely detrimental. To the extent that I can
carry the views of others , I believe these views are shared by many.

P.

>
>
-- 
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign
with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Samuel Moore]

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for sharing this report with the list. I may need to read this again
in more detail, but one thing I don’t quite understand is the focus on
‘high-level experts’. You write:

‘There has never been an inclusive, global effort to bring everyone
together first—broadly, at scale and at a high, policy-making level—to
identify common ground needs and interests, then collectively brainstorm
options, and only then design specific policies and solutions that work
within this globally operational and sustainable framework’

I’ve always felt that one of the more exciting things about open access has
been the influence of grassroots and activist strands of advocacy, or those
that specifically foreground local and diverse contexts instead of
broad-scale, top-down and policy-based approaches. Are you able to say a
bit more about what ‘high-level’ means here and how your approach would
preserve these contexts without imposing your common-ground solutions onto
them?

The reason I’m asking this is because your report mentions my work on
openness as a ‘boundary object’, which is a term developed by Star and
Griesemer to describe concepts that have both a shared flexible meaning and
a nuanced local meaning that allow the possibility of cooperation between
local groups. I argued that open access is one such boundary object because
it means many things to different people but is broadly recognisable across
contexts. However, the problem with introducing boundary objects into the
policy sphere is that they become regulated and homogenised, simply because
it is difficult to preserve local contexts in a global setting. This kind
of homogenisation tends to benefit those with more power (in this case
large commercial publishers operating at scale) at the expense of the
bibliodiversity that Kathleen is arguing in favour of nurturing.

I’d be interested to hear more on the 'high-level' focus of your group and
whether you see it as antagonistic to non-high-level approaches. Put
another way, are you not simply looking for common ground between the
groups who are already in charge of scholarly communication (policymakers,
commercial publishers, senior figures, etc.) to the exclusion of those
operating at the margins?

Thanks!

Sam


-- 
Dr. Samuel A. Moore
Research Fellow
Centre for Postdigital Cultures
Coventry University
https://www.samuelmoore.org/
Twitter: @samoore_


On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:27 PM Glenn Hampson 
wrote:

> Hi David,
>
>
>
> In reply to your statement, “that people with fundamental disagreements
> can agree on general principles does nothing to resolve those
> disagreements,” I deeply disagree. To my knowledge and experience---which,
> granted, appears to differ from yours---agreeing on general principles is,
> in fact, a prerequisite to actually resolving disagreements as opposed to
> just papering over them. I would be happy to debate this with you off-list.
> I don’t want to exhaust the good will of our audience here (if we haven’t
> already).
>
>
>
> But to elaborate, from page 18 of the paper (the long version): “….common
> ground is a unique, "expanded pie" state. It isn't a grand compromise where
> we manage to divide a static pie into smaller, less satisfying slices, but
> creating a larger pie where new value is available throughout the system.
> In this case, then, common ground doesn't mean seeking a compromise between
> embargoes and immediate release; or between APCs and subscriptions; or
> between publish or perish culture in academia and something a little kinder
> and gentler. It means thinking beyond, focusing not on picking specific
> solutions but on understanding how our interests overlap lest we get
> weighted down by too many solutions or too many solutions we don’t like. By
> identifying the broad contours of common ground that exist in this
> conversation we can build the guardrails and mileposts for our
> collaborative efforts and then allow the finer-grained details of
> community-developed plans more flexibility and guidance to evolve over
> time.”
>
>
>
> Please note that examples of common ground perspectives from OSI’s five
> years of work are included on report pages 19-26, and also in Annex 1
> (pages 39-53).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
>
> *Glenn Hampson*
> *Executive Director*
> *Science Communication Institute (SCI) *
>
> *Program Director**Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
> *
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  *On
> Behalf Of *David Wojick
> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2020 1:49 PM
> *To:* Glenn Hampson 
> *Cc:* Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; Kathleen Shearer <
> m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>;  <
> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>;  <
> scholc...@lists.ala.org>; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <
> goal@eprints.org>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <
> osi2016...@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly
> 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi David,

 

In reply to your statement, “that people with fundamental disagreements can 
agree on general principles does nothing to resolve those disagreements,” I 
deeply disagree. To my knowledge and experience---which, granted, appears to 
differ from yours---agreeing on general principles is, in fact, a prerequisite 
to actually resolving disagreements as opposed to just papering over them. I 
would be happy to debate this with you off-list. I don’t want to exhaust the 
good will of our audience here (if we haven’t already).

 

But to elaborate, from page 18 of the paper (the long version): “….common 
ground is a unique, "expanded pie" state. It isn't a grand compromise where we 
manage to divide a static pie into smaller, less satisfying slices, but 
creating a larger pie where new value is available throughout the system. In 
this case, then, common ground doesn't mean seeking a compromise between 
embargoes and immediate release; or between APCs and subscriptions; or between 
publish or perish culture in academia and something a little kinder and 
gentler. It means thinking beyond, focusing not on picking specific solutions 
but on understanding how our interests overlap lest we get weighted down by too 
many solutions or too many solutions we don’t like. By identifying the broad 
contours of common ground that exist in this conversation we can build the 
guardrails and mileposts for our collaborative efforts and then allow the 
finer-grained details of community-developed plans more flexibility and 
guidance to evolve over time.”

 

Please note that examples of common ground perspectives from OSI’s five years 
of work are included on report pages 19-26, and also in Annex 1 (pages 39-53).

 

Regards,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



 

 

 

From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  On 
Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 1:49 PM
To: Glenn Hampson 
Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; Kathleen Shearer 
;  
;  
; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
; The Open Scholarship Initiative 

Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action

 

This all sounds good but I do not see it working as an approach to conflict 
resolution. That people with fundamental disagreements can agree on general 
principles does nothing to resolve those disagreements. For example, librarians 
want lower costs but publishers do not want reduced revenues.


David


On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:46 PM, Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > wrote:

Most is annex material  But I’ll send you the summary link when it’s available 
(hopefully next week).

 

In the interim, the Cliff Notes version is that the entire scholarly 
communication community, large and small, for-profit and non-profit recognizes 
many of the same fundamental interests and concerns about open, such as 
lowering costs and improving global access; and the importance of many of the 
same connected issues in this space such as impact factors and the culture of 
communication in academia. This community also shares a deep, common commitment 
to improving the future of research, and improving the contribution of research 
to society.

 

If all this still isn’t enough for you, read the paper (or skim it)---there’s a 
lot more. The key isn’t to find and focus on common ground on solutions right 
out of the gate (and inevitably end up arguing with each other about whose 
solution is best). It’s to recognize our common interests and concerns first, 
and only then start building out solutions and options, together. We’ve been 
skipping a necessary step in this process for far too long.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



 

From: David Wojick mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us> 
> 
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 12:05 PM
To: Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> >
Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu> >; Kathleen 
Shearer mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> >; 
mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> > 
mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> >; 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> > 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> >; Global Open Access 
List (Successor of AmSci) mailto:goal@eprints.org> >
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action

 

Glenn,

 

It is 107 pages! In the interim, which may be long, here is a simple example. 
There is a sizable school of thought that says journals should not be published 
by commercial (for profit) publishers. Then there are the commercial 
publishers, who publish a sizable fraction of the journals. 

 

What is the common ground between these two large groups?

 

David


On Apr 20, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > wrote:

Hi David,

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[David Wojick]

This all sounds good but I do not see it working as an approach to conflict 
resolution. That people with fundamental disagreements can agree on general 
principles does nothing to resolve those disagreements. For example, librarians 
want lower costs but publishers do not want reduced revenues.

David

> On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:46 PM, Glenn Hampson  
> wrote:
> 
> Most is annex material  But I’ll send you the summary link when it’s 
> available (hopefully next week).
>  
> In the interim, the Cliff Notes version is that the entire scholarly 
> communication community, large and small, for-profit and non-profit 
> recognizes many of the same fundamental interests and concerns about open, 
> such as lowering costs and improving global access; and the importance of 
> many of the same connected issues in this space such as impact factors and 
> the culture of communication in academia. This community also shares a deep, 
> common commitment to improving the future of research, and improving the 
> contribution of research to society.
>  
> If all this still isn’t enough for you, read the paper (or skim it)---there’s 
> a lot more. The key isn’t to find and focus on common ground on solutions 
> right out of the gate (and inevitably end up arguing with each other about 
> whose solution is best). It’s to recognize our common interests and concerns 
> first, and only then start building out solutions and options, together. 
> We’ve been skipping a necessary step in this process for far too long.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Glenn
>  
>  
> Glenn Hampson
> Executive Director
> Science Communication Institute (SCI)
> Program Director
> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
> 
>  
> From: David Wojick  
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 12:05 PM
> To: Glenn Hampson 
> Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; Kathleen Shearer 
> ;  
> ;  
> ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> 
> Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> Communications: A Call for Action
>  
> Glenn,
>  
> It is 107 pages! In the interim, which may be long, here is a simple example. 
> There is a sizable school of thought that says journals should not be 
> published by commercial (for profit) publishers. Then there are the 
> commercial publishers, who publish a sizable fraction of the journals. 
>  
> What is the common ground between these two large groups?
>  
> David
> 
> On Apr 20, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Glenn Hampson  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi David,
>  
> I encourage you to read the paper and let me know what you think (on-list or 
> direct): 
> http://plan-a.world/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/OSI-policy-perspective-2-final.pdf.
>  I apologize for the length of this---the summary version hasn’t been 
> published yet.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Glenn
>  
> Glenn Hampson
> Executive Director
> Science Communication Institute (SCI)
> Program Director
> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
> 
>  
>  
>  
> From: David Wojick  
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM
> To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray 
> Cc: Kathleen Shearer ; 
> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access 
> List (Successor of AmSci) ; Glenn Hampson 
> 
> Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> Communications: A Call for Action
>  
> I suspect there are lots of limits to common ground. In fact the hypothesis 
> that there is significant common ground strikes me as untested, much less 
> proven, especially if one includes the more radical positions.
> 
> David Wojick
> 
> On Apr 20, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray  wrote:
> 
> I have two brief comments to add to this thread.
>  
> 1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that automatic translation, 
> however imperfect, could be satisfactory for certain scholarly purposes but 
> not others.  We don;t always need an elegant translation to get the gist of 
> what is being said, and that may suffice for certain purposes, say, in 
> background reading. On the other hand, I have always opposed the CC BY 
> license as inadequate it deprives the author of control over quality in 
> translation, which is VERY important to scholars at least in the HSS fields, 
> if not in all.  Once a poor translation is done, motivation (especially 
> market-based) declines for doing a better one.
>  
> 2) As for "common ground," of course there is common ground to be found 
> amongst all types of publishers, but I see a fundamental "divide" between 
> nonprofit and for-profit publishers in that at least one potentially key 
> avenue toward open access, viz., endowment funding, is available to 
> nonprofits in a way it is not to for-profit publishers. Both nonprofit and 
> for-profit publishers can operate on the basis of having the market mechanism 
> be that by which they fund their businesses, but only nonprofits have these 
> nonmarket-based alternatives (which also include university subsidies to 
> presses) to explore as well. That is a basic difference that will determine 
> what the limits of 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Glenn Hampson]

I beg to differ, David. Take a look at the paper’s references section for a 
list of suggested reading on this approach. Also take a look at agreements like 
the Columbia River Treaty 
 
, which aren’t based on “divide the pie” compromises, but on building a 
relationship between many stakeholders (nations, states, fisheries, farmers, 
power suppliers, etc.) and finding a way to work together on common interests.

 

From: David Wojick  
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 1:36 PM
To: Hinchliffe, Lisa W 
Cc: Glenn Hampson ; Thatcher, Sanford Gray 
; Kathleen Shearer ; 
 ; 
 ; Global Open Access List 
(Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action

 

My point is there may well be no such actions. Policy is normally a realm of 
compromise, where no one gets what they want, not a matter of finding common 
ground. Seeking common ground strikes me as an odd model for conflict 
resolution.

David


On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:43 PM, Hinchliffe, Lisa W mailto:ljani...@illinois.edu> > wrote:

Well, David, yes - that's exactly what Plan A calls for ... engaging in inquiry 
to find those actions. 

 

--

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe 
Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction
University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, 
Illinois 61801 
ljani...@illinois.edu  , 217-333-1323 (v), 
217-244-4358 (f)

 

  _  

From: David Wojick mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us> >
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Hinchliffe, Lisa W mailto:ljani...@illinois.edu> >
Cc: Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> >; Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu> >; Kathleen Shearer mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> >; mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> > mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> >; mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> > mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> >; Global Open Access List (Successor of 
AmSci) mailto:goal@eprints.org> >
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action 

 

Yes, of course, but presumably we are looking for actionable common ground, not 
just shared beliefs.

David


On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Hinchliffe, Lisa W mailto:ljani...@illinois.edu> > wrote:

Common ground between those two appears to me to be the belief that there 
should be scholarly journals. (Which, of course, is not a view that everyone 
holds. But ... even then, I think there is common ground that "scholarly 
communication is a worthwhile activity" ). 

 

--

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe 
Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction
University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, 
Illinois 61801 
  ljani...@illinois.edu, 217-333-1323 (v), 
217-244-4358 (f)



 

  _  

From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org   
mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> > on 
behalf of David Wojick mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us> >
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:04 PM
To: Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> >
Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu> >; Kathleen 
Shearer mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> >; 
mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> > 
mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> >; 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> > 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> >; Global Open Access 
List (Successor of AmSci) mailto:goal@eprints.org> >
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action 

 

Glenn,

 

It is 107 pages! In the interim, which may be long, here is a simple example. 
There is a sizable school of thought that says journals should not be published 
by commercial (for profit) publishers. Then there are the commercial 
publishers, who publish a sizable fraction of the journals. 

 

What is the common ground between these two large groups?

 

David


On Apr 20, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > wrote:

Hi David,

 

I encourage you to read the paper and let me know what you think (on-list or 
direct): 
http://plan-a.world/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/OSI-policy-perspective-2-final.pdf
 

 . I apologize for the length of this---the summary version hasn’t been 
published yet.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



 

 

 

From: David Wojick mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us> 
> 
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[David Wojick]

My point is there may well be no such actions. Policy is normally a realm of 
compromise, where no one gets what they want, not a matter of finding common 
ground. Seeking common ground strikes me as an odd model for conflict 
resolution.

David

> On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:43 PM, Hinchliffe, Lisa W  wrote:
> 
> Well, David, yes - that's exactly what Plan A calls for ... engaging in 
> inquiry to find those actions. 
> 
> --
> 
> Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe 
> Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction
> University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, 
> Illinois 61801 
> ljani...@illinois.edu, 217-333-1323 (v), 217-244-4358 (f)
> 
> 
> 
> From: David Wojick 
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:41 PM
> To: Hinchliffe, Lisa W 
> Cc: Glenn Hampson ; Thatcher, Sanford Gray 
> ; Kathleen Shearer ; 
>  ; 
>  ; Global Open Access List 
> (Successor of AmSci) 
> Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> Communications: A Call for Action
>  
> Yes, of course, but presumably we are looking for actionable common ground, 
> not just shared beliefs.
> 
> David
> 
> On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Hinchliffe, Lisa W  wrote:
> 
>> Common ground between those two appears to me to be the belief that there 
>> should be scholarly journals. (Which, of course, is not a view that everyone 
>> holds. But ... even then, I think there is common ground that "scholarly 
>> communication is a worthwhile activity" ). 
>> 
>> --
>> Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe 
>> Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction
>> University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, 
>> Illinois 61801 
>> ljani...@illinois.edu, 217-333-1323 (v), 217-244-4358 (f)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  on 
>> behalf of David Wojick 
>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:04 PM
>> To: Glenn Hampson 
>> Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; Kathleen Shearer 
>> ;  
>> ;  
>> ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
>> Communications: A Call for Action
>>  
>> Glenn,
>> 
>> It is 107 pages! In the interim, which may be long, here is a simple 
>> example. There is a sizable school of thought that says journals should not 
>> be published by commercial (for profit) publishers. Then there are the 
>> commercial publishers, who publish a sizable fraction of the journals. 
>> 
>> What is the common ground between these two large groups?
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> On Apr 20, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Glenn Hampson  
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi David,
>>>  
>>> I encourage you to read the paper and let me know what you think (on-list 
>>> or direct): 
>>> http://plan-a.world/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/OSI-policy-perspective-2-final.pdf.
>>>  I apologize for the length of this---the summary version hasn’t been 
>>> published yet.
>>>  
>>> Best,
>>>  
>>> Glenn
>>>  
>>> Glenn Hampson
>>> Executive Director
>>> Science Communication Institute (SCI)
>>> Program Director
>>> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: David Wojick  
>>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM
>>> To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray 
>>> Cc: Kathleen Shearer ; 
>>> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access 
>>> List (Successor of AmSci) ; Glenn Hampson 
>>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
>>> Communications: A Call for Action
>>>  
>>> I suspect there are lots of limits to common ground. In fact the hypothesis 
>>> that there is significant common ground strikes me as untested, much less 
>>> proven, especially if one includes the more radical positions.
>>> 
>>> David Wojick
>>> 
>>> On Apr 20, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I have two brief comments to add to this thread.
>>>  
>>> 1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that automatic 
>>> translation, however imperfect, could be satisfactory for certain scholarly 
>>> purposes but not others.  We don;t always need an elegant translation to 
>>> get the gist of what is being said, and that may suffice for certain 
>>> purposes, say, in background reading. On the other hand, I have always 
>>> opposed the CC BY license as inadequate it deprives the author of control 
>>> over quality in translation, which is VERY important to scholars at least 
>>> in the HSS fields, if not in all.  Once a poor translation is done, 
>>> motivation (especially market-based) declines for doing a better one.
>>>  
>>> 2) As for "common ground," of course there is common ground to be found 
>>> amongst all types of publishers, but I see a fundamental "divide" between 
>>> nonprofit and for-profit publishers in that at least one potentially key 
>>> avenue toward open access, viz., endowment funding, is available to 
>>> nonprofits in a way it is not to for-profit publishers. Both nonprofit and 
>>> for-profit publishers can operate on the basis of having the 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Glenn Hampson]

Most is annex material  But I’ll send you the summary link when it’s available 
(hopefully next week).

 

In the interim, the Cliff Notes version is that the entire scholarly 
communication community, large and small, for-profit and non-profit recognizes 
many of the same fundamental interests and concerns about open, such as 
lowering costs and improving global access; and the importance of many of the 
same connected issues in this space such as impact factors and the culture of 
communication in academia. This community also shares a deep, common commitment 
to improving the future of research, and improving the contribution of research 
to society.

 

If all this still isn’t enough for you, read the paper (or skim it)---there’s a 
lot more. The key isn’t to find and focus on common ground on solutions right 
out of the gate (and inevitably end up arguing with each other about whose 
solution is best). It’s to recognize our common interests and concerns first, 
and only then start building out solutions and options, together. We’ve been 
skipping a necessary step in this process for far too long.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



 

From: David Wojick  
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 12:05 PM
To: Glenn Hampson 
Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; Kathleen Shearer 
;  
;  
; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 

Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action

 

Glenn,

 

It is 107 pages! In the interim, which may be long, here is a simple example. 
There is a sizable school of thought that says journals should not be published 
by commercial (for profit) publishers. Then there are the commercial 
publishers, who publish a sizable fraction of the journals. 

 

What is the common ground between these two large groups?

 

David


On Apr 20, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > wrote:

Hi David,

 

I encourage you to read the paper and let me know what you think (on-list or 
direct): 
http://plan-a.world/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/OSI-policy-perspective-2-final.pdf.
 I apologize for the length of this---the summary version hasn’t been published 
yet.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



 

 

 

From: David Wojick mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us> 
> 
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM
To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu> >
Cc: Kathleen Shearer mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> >; richard.poyn...@btinternet.com 
 ; scholc...@lists.ala.org 
 ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
mailto:goal@eprints.org> >; Glenn Hampson 
mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> >
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action

 

I suspect there are lots of limits to common ground. In fact the hypothesis 
that there is significant common ground strikes me as untested, much less 
proven, especially if one includes the more radical positions.

David Wojick


On Apr 20, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu> > wrote:

I have two brief comments to add to this thread.

 

1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that automatic translation, 
however imperfect, could be satisfactory for certain scholarly purposes but not 
others.  We don;t always need an elegant translation to get the gist of what is 
being said, and that may suffice for certain purposes, say, in background 
reading. On the other hand, I have always opposed the CC BY license as 
inadequate it deprives the author of control over quality in translation, which 
is VERY important to scholars at least in the HSS fields, if not in all.  Once 
a poor translation is done, motivation (especially market-based) declines for 
doing a better one.

 

2) As for "common ground," of course there is common ground to be found amongst 
all types of publishers, but I see a fundamental "divide" between nonprofit and 
for-profit publishers in that at least one potentially key avenue toward open 
access, viz., endowment funding, is available to nonprofits in a way it is not 
to for-profit publishers. Both nonprofit and for-profit publishers can operate 
on the basis of having the market mechanism be that by which they fund their 
businesses, but only nonprofits have these nonmarket-based alternatives (which 
also include university subsidies to presses) to explore as well. That is a 
basic difference that will determine what the limits of "common ground" can be.

 

Sandy Thatcher

  _  

From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org   
mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> > on 
behalf of Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> >
Sent: Monday, 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Hinchliffe, Lisa W]

Well, David, yes - that's exactly what Plan A calls for ... engaging in inquiry 
to find those actions.

--
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction
University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, 
Illinois 61801
ljani...@illinois.edu, 217-333-1323 (v), 
217-244-4358 (f)


From: David Wojick 
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:41 PM
To: Hinchliffe, Lisa W 
Cc: Glenn Hampson ; Thatcher, Sanford Gray 
; Kathleen Shearer ; 
 ; 
 ; Global Open Access List 
(Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action

Yes, of course, but presumably we are looking for actionable common ground, not 
just shared beliefs.

David

On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Hinchliffe, Lisa W 
mailto:ljani...@illinois.edu>> wrote:

Common ground between those two appears to me to be the belief that there 
should be scholarly journals. (Which, of course, is not a view that everyone 
holds. But ... even then, I think there is common ground that "scholarly 
communication is a worthwhile activity" ).

--

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction
University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, 
Illinois 61801
ljani...@illinois.edu, 217-333-1323 (v), 
217-244-4358 (f)


From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org 
mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org>> on 
behalf of David Wojick 
mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:04 PM
To: Glenn Hampson 
mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>>
Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu>>; Kathleen 
Shearer mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>>; 
mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>> 
mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>>; 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>> 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>>; Global Open Access 
List (Successor of AmSci) mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action

Glenn,

It is 107 pages! In the interim, which may be long, here is a simple example. 
There is a sizable school of thought that says journals should not be published 
by commercial (for profit) publishers. Then there are the commercial 
publishers, who publish a sizable fraction of the journals.

What is the common ground between these two large groups?

David

On Apr 20, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Glenn Hampson 
mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>> wrote:


Hi David,



I encourage you to read the paper and let me know what you think (on-list or 
direct): 
http://plan-a.world/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/OSI-policy-perspective-2-final.pdf.
 I apologize for the length of this---the summary version hasn’t been published 
yet.



Best,



Glenn



Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

[cid:image002.jpg@01D616FE.22D00250]







From: David Wojick mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM
To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu>>
Cc: Kathleen Shearer 
mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>>; 
richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; 
scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access 
List (Successor of AmSci) mailto:goal@eprints.org>>; Glenn 
Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>>
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action



I suspect there are lots of limits to common ground. In fact the hypothesis 
that there is significant common ground strikes me as untested, much less 
proven, especially if one includes the more radical positions.

David Wojick

On Apr 20, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray 
mailto:s...@psu.edu>> wrote:

I have two brief comments to add to this thread.



1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that automatic translation, 
however imperfect, could be satisfactory for certain scholarly purposes but not 
others.  We don;t always need an elegant translation to get the gist of what is 
being said, and that may suffice for certain purposes, say, in background 
reading. On the other hand, I have always opposed the CC BY license as 
inadequate it deprives the author of control over quality in translation, which 
is VERY important to scholars at least in the HSS fields, if not in all.  Once 
a poor translation is done, motivation (especially market-based) 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[BAUIN Serge]

In support to Sandy's second point,

It is striking how the “common ground” idea overlooks the dialectical 
opposition between ends and means:

  *   The objective of a “for profit publisher” is, as the name says it, to 
make profits by the means of publishing;
  *   Whereas a “not for profit” publisher has to find revenues in order to 
publish.

Does it make a difference, does it really matter?
I think so.

Best

Serge Bauin



De : "Thatcher, Sanford Gray" mailto:s...@psu.edu>>
Répondre à : Global List mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Date : Mon, 20 Apr 2020 16:54:09 +
À : 'Kathleen Shearer' 
mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>>, 
"richard.poyn...@btinternet.com" 
mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>>, 
"scholc...@lists.ala.org" 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>>, Global List 
mailto:goal@eprints.org>>, Glenn Hampson 
mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>>
Objet : Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action

I have two brief comments to add to this thread.

1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that automatic translation, 
however imperfect, could be satisfactory for certain scholarly purposes but not 
others.  We don;t always need an elegant translation to get the gist of what is 
being said, and that may suffice for certain purposes, say, in background 
reading. On the other hand, I have always opposed the CC BY license as 
inadequate it deprives the author of control over quality in translation, which 
is VERY important to scholars at least in the HSS fields, if not in all.  Once 
a poor translation is done, motivation (especially market-based) declines for 
doing a better one.

2) As for "common ground," of course there is common ground to be found amongst 
all types of publishers, but I see a fundamental "divide" between nonprofit and 
for-profit publishers in that at least one potentially key avenue toward open 
access, viz., endowment funding, is available to nonprofits in a way it is not 
to for-profit publishers. Both nonprofit and for-profit publishers can operate 
on the basis of having the market mechanism be that by which they fund their 
businesses, but only nonprofits have these nonmarket-based alternatives (which 
also include university subsidies to presses) to explore as well. That is a 
basic difference that will determine what the limits of "common ground" can be.

Sandy Thatcher

From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org 
mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org>> on 
behalf of Glenn Hampson 
mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM
To: 'Kathleen Shearer' 
mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>>; 
richard.poyn...@btinternet.com 
mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>>; 
scholc...@lists.ala.org 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>>; 'Global Open Access 
List (Successor of AmSci)' mailto:goal@eprints.org>>
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action


Hi Kathleen, Richard,

Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. As 
you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today 
(http://plan-a.world).
 Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action plan, representing five years of deep thinking 
that OSI participants have invested in the many questions related to the future 
of scholarly communication reform.

Plan A looks at the “bibliodiversity” challenge a little differently. For OSI, 
diversity has also meant inclusion---listening to everyone’s ideas (including 
publishers), valuing everyone’s input, trying to develop a complete 
understanding of the scholarly communication landscape, and trying to reach a 
point where we can work together on common ground toward goals that serve all 
of us.

We have found over the course of our work that most everyone in the scholarly 
communication community recognizes the same challenges on the road ahead, we 
all have the same needs, and we all suffer from the same inability to see the 
full picture ourselves and to make change by ourselves. Fulfilling the vision 
of bibliodiversity will mean valuing everyone’s perspective of and contribution 
to the scholarly communication system, and truly working together across our 
real and perceived divides to achieve, together, what is in the best interest 
of research and society.

OSI’s common ground paper provides a deeper look at this common ground and some 
of the approaches suggested by OSI participants. The summary version will be 
published soon by Emerald Open; for 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[David Wojick]

Yes, of course, but presumably we are looking for actionable common ground, not 
just shared beliefs.

David

> On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Hinchliffe, Lisa W  wrote:
> 
> Common ground between those two appears to me to be the belief that there 
> should be scholarly journals. (Which, of course, is not a view that everyone 
> holds. But ... even then, I think there is common ground that "scholarly 
> communication is a worthwhile activity" ). 
> 
> --
> Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe 
> Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction
> University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, 
> Illinois 61801 
> ljani...@illinois.edu, 217-333-1323 (v), 217-244-4358 (f)
> 
> 
> 
> From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  on 
> behalf of David Wojick 
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:04 PM
> To: Glenn Hampson 
> Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; Kathleen Shearer 
> ;  
> ;  
> ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
> 
> Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> Communications: A Call for Action
>  
> Glenn,
> 
> It is 107 pages! In the interim, which may be long, here is a simple example. 
> There is a sizable school of thought that says journals should not be 
> published by commercial (for profit) publishers. Then there are the 
> commercial publishers, who publish a sizable fraction of the journals. 
> 
> What is the common ground between these two large groups?
> 
> David
> 
> On Apr 20, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Glenn Hampson  
> wrote:
> 
>> Hi David,
>>  
>> I encourage you to read the paper and let me know what you think (on-list or 
>> direct): 
>> http://plan-a.world/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/OSI-policy-perspective-2-final.pdf.
>>  I apologize for the length of this---the summary version hasn’t been 
>> published yet.
>>  
>> Best,
>>  
>> Glenn
>>  
>> Glenn Hampson
>> Executive Director
>> Science Communication Institute (SCI)
>> Program Director
>> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> From: David Wojick  
>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM
>> To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray 
>> Cc: Kathleen Shearer ; 
>> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access 
>> List (Successor of AmSci) ; Glenn Hampson 
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
>> Communications: A Call for Action
>>  
>> I suspect there are lots of limits to common ground. In fact the hypothesis 
>> that there is significant common ground strikes me as untested, much less 
>> proven, especially if one includes the more radical positions.
>> 
>> David Wojick
>> 
>> On Apr 20, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray  wrote:
>> 
>> I have two brief comments to add to this thread.
>>  
>> 1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that automatic translation, 
>> however imperfect, could be satisfactory for certain scholarly purposes but 
>> not others.  We don;t always need an elegant translation to get the gist of 
>> what is being said, and that may suffice for certain purposes, say, in 
>> background reading. On the other hand, I have always opposed the CC BY 
>> license as inadequate it deprives the author of control over quality in 
>> translation, which is VERY important to scholars at least in the HSS fields, 
>> if not in all.  Once a poor translation is done, motivation (especially 
>> market-based) declines for doing a better one.
>>  
>> 2) As for "common ground," of course there is common ground to be found 
>> amongst all types of publishers, but I see a fundamental "divide" between 
>> nonprofit and for-profit publishers in that at least one potentially key 
>> avenue toward open access, viz., endowment funding, is available to 
>> nonprofits in a way it is not to for-profit publishers. Both nonprofit and 
>> for-profit publishers can operate on the basis of having the market 
>> mechanism be that by which they fund their businesses, but only nonprofits 
>> have these nonmarket-based alternatives (which also include university 
>> subsidies to presses) to explore as well. That is a basic difference that 
>> will determine what the limits of "common ground" can be.
>>  
>> Sandy Thatcher
>> From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  on 
>> behalf of Glenn Hampson 
>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM
>> To: 'Kathleen Shearer' ; 
>> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com ; 
>> scholc...@lists.ala.org ; 'Global Open Access List 
>> (Successor of AmSci)' 
>> Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
>> Communications: A Call for Action
>>  
>> Hi Kathleen, Richard,
>> Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. 
>> As you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today 
>> (http://plan-a.world). Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action plan, representing 
>> five years of deep thinking that OSI participants have invested in the many 
>> questions related to the future of scholarly communication reform.
>> Plan A looks at 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Kathleen Shearer]

Glen, all.

You will never get everyone in the world to agree about anything. There are 
still people who don’t agree that climate change is real.

But that should not stop us from doing what is right and is now, so obviously, 
a moral imperative. 

I’m not going to get into a protracted discussion about whether open access is 
worthy goal, because for me, I know that it is.

And I invite those of you who do support the objective of OA to consider, 
during this transition to OA, how to ensure we have a healthy and diverse 
ecosystem for scholarly communications.

There are always some who lead, and others who resist or try to slow things 
down. That’s just a part of life.


> 
> Hi Kathleen,
>  
> I wish you well with your work and am interested in helping. But if I may, 
> I’d like to reply to two points in your email. The first is with regard to 
> “ambition.” I think it’s fair to say that both of these efforts are on the 
> audacious end of the ambition scale. Our view, however---which I think is 
> more reflective of the broad, global scholcomm community---is that we 
> shouldn’t predefine the end goal as being “full open access” because (a) not 
> everyone agrees with this approach (many prefer some other state, like “more 
> open”), and (b) open means many different things to many different people in 
> the open space---open has been adopted and coopted in a wide variety of ways. 
> So, saying in advance that there is only one true way means we may end up 
> with much lower levels of open if we can’t get everything we want.
>  
> Second, I mention your “least common denominator” argument in the Common 
> Ground paper. It’s a reasonable point for sure, and one that we’ve heard for 
> years in OSI. Here’s an excerpt from pages 12-14 that tries to speak to this 
> concern (the argument continues beyond page 14---this is just the intro):
> … the central premise of this paper is that by building on the common ground 
> we have in this community we have a better chance of developing the right 
> solutions for the future of open research in the right order and for the 
> right reasons, and that these solutions will have a better chance of being 
> adopted and sustained and will allow the full potential of open to flourish. 
> From this common ground, and with common global action we can not only 
> realize the full potential of open but also solve all the connected issues in 
> this space, from affordability to predatory publishing to academia’s publish 
> or perish culture.
> A LEAP OF FAITH?
> Does it require a leap of faith to agree with this premise? Yes, most 
> definitely. There are many brilliant and passionate experts in this community 
> who believe common ground is a mirage—that only limited or unilateral actions 
> will lead to global open reforms in the near future; or that global action 
> has no chance of happening so it’s better to take what we can get; or that 
> global action will only achieve “watered down” open that doesn’t immediately 
> satisfy our most ambitious plans. Jon Tennant summarizes other perspectives 
> on this leap of faith (Tennant 2020):
> First, [there is such a diversity of principles, practices and outputs 
> involved that] a single, unified, comprehensive and widely-accepted consensus 
> definition [of open scholarship] is probably not sufficient (or even 
> desirable), unless such a definition readily embraces this diversity (e.g., 
> as the Open Scholarship Initiative seems to do). Second, there remains a need 
> to rigorously define and enforce the philosophy, values, and principles of 
> Open Scholarship, and explore how these underpin the practices, and to have 
> consensus reached on this within the scholarly community. 
> 
> This would address the lack of common understanding, which has impeded the 
> widespread adoption of the strategic direction and goals behind Open 
> Scholarship, prevented it from becoming a true social ‘movement’, and 
> separated researchers into disintegrated groups with differing, and often 
> contested, definitions and levels of adoption of openness (Tennant, Beamer, 
> et al. 2019). Rebecca Willen has also identified that there might be two, 
> perhaps three, different sub-movements that intersect in different ways, 
> involving ‘open science’, ‘replicable science’, and ‘justice-oriented 
> science’…. Alternatively, it could be the case that now, open research is 
> diffused in such a wide variety of ways that there cannot plausibly be a 
> single, cohesive community and set of practices that define it…. Instead, 
> Open Scholarship, Open Research, and Open Science might best be thought of as 
> overlapping/intersecting ‘boundary objects’ (Moore 2017) that represent this 
> inherent diversity.
> Broadly speaking, then, the difference in approach between the leapers and 
> the non-leapers is that we can be inclusive or exclusive with our 
> efforts—inclusive if we want to reach a broad, global, sustainable agreement; 
> or exclusive 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Hinchliffe, Lisa W]

Common ground between those two appears to me to be the belief that there 
should be scholarly journals. (Which, of course, is not a view that everyone 
holds. But ... even then, I think there is common ground that "scholarly 
communication is a worthwhile activity" ).

--
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction
University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, 
Illinois 61801
ljani...@illinois.edu, 217-333-1323 (v), 
217-244-4358 (f)


From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  on 
behalf of David Wojick 
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:04 PM
To: Glenn Hampson 
Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; Kathleen Shearer 
;  
;  
; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 

Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action

Glenn,

It is 107 pages! In the interim, which may be long, here is a simple example. 
There is a sizable school of thought that says journals should not be published 
by commercial (for profit) publishers. Then there are the commercial 
publishers, who publish a sizable fraction of the journals.

What is the common ground between these two large groups?

David

On Apr 20, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Glenn Hampson 
mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>> wrote:


Hi David,



I encourage you to read the paper and let me know what you think (on-list or 
direct): 
http://plan-a.world/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/OSI-policy-perspective-2-final.pdf.
 I apologize for the length of this---the summary version hasn’t been published 
yet.



Best,



Glenn



Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

[cid:image002.jpg@01D616FE.22D00250]







From: David Wojick mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM
To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu>>
Cc: Kathleen Shearer 
mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>>; 
richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; 
scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access 
List (Successor of AmSci) mailto:goal@eprints.org>>; Glenn 
Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>>
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action



I suspect there are lots of limits to common ground. In fact the hypothesis 
that there is significant common ground strikes me as untested, much less 
proven, especially if one includes the more radical positions.

David Wojick

On Apr 20, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray 
mailto:s...@psu.edu>> wrote:

I have two brief comments to add to this thread.



1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that automatic translation, 
however imperfect, could be satisfactory for certain scholarly purposes but not 
others.  We don;t always need an elegant translation to get the gist of what is 
being said, and that may suffice for certain purposes, say, in background 
reading. On the other hand, I have always opposed the CC BY license as 
inadequate it deprives the author of control over quality in translation, which 
is VERY important to scholars at least in the HSS fields, if not in all.  Once 
a poor translation is done, motivation (especially market-based) declines for 
doing a better one.



2) As for "common ground," of course there is common ground to be found amongst 
all types of publishers, but I see a fundamental "divide" between nonprofit and 
for-profit publishers in that at least one potentially key avenue toward open 
access, viz., endowment funding, is available to nonprofits in a way it is not 
to for-profit publishers. Both nonprofit and for-profit publishers can operate 
on the basis of having the market mechanism be that by which they fund their 
businesses, but only nonprofits have these nonmarket-based alternatives (which 
also include university subsidies to presses) to explore as well. That is a 
basic difference that will determine what the limits of "common ground" can be.



Sandy Thatcher



From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org 
mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org>> on 
behalf of Glenn Hampson 
mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>>
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM
To: 'Kathleen Shearer' 
mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>>; 
richard.poyn...@btinternet.com 
mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>>; 
scholc...@lists.ala.org 
mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>>; 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[David Wojick]

Glenn,

It is 107 pages! In the interim, which may be long, here is a simple example. 
There is a sizable school of thought that says journals should not be published 
by commercial (for profit) publishers. Then there are the commercial 
publishers, who publish a sizable fraction of the journals. 

What is the common ground between these two large groups?

David

> On Apr 20, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Glenn Hampson  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi David,
>  
> I encourage you to read the paper and let me know what you think (on-list or 
> direct): 
> http://plan-a.world/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/OSI-policy-perspective-2-final.pdf.
>  I apologize for the length of this---the summary version hasn’t been 
> published yet.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Glenn
>  
> Glenn Hampson
> Executive Director
> Science Communication Institute (SCI)
> Program Director
> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
> 
>  
>  
>  
> From: David Wojick  
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM
> To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray 
> Cc: Kathleen Shearer ; 
> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access 
> List (Successor of AmSci) ; Glenn Hampson 
> 
> Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> Communications: A Call for Action
>  
> I suspect there are lots of limits to common ground. In fact the hypothesis 
> that there is significant common ground strikes me as untested, much less 
> proven, especially if one includes the more radical positions.
> 
> David Wojick
> 
> On Apr 20, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray  wrote:
> 
> I have two brief comments to add to this thread.
>  
> 1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that automatic translation, 
> however imperfect, could be satisfactory for certain scholarly purposes but 
> not others.  We don;t always need an elegant translation to get the gist of 
> what is being said, and that may suffice for certain purposes, say, in 
> background reading. On the other hand, I have always opposed the CC BY 
> license as inadequate it deprives the author of control over quality in 
> translation, which is VERY important to scholars at least in the HSS fields, 
> if not in all.  Once a poor translation is done, motivation (especially 
> market-based) declines for doing a better one.
>  
> 2) As for "common ground," of course there is common ground to be found 
> amongst all types of publishers, but I see a fundamental "divide" between 
> nonprofit and for-profit publishers in that at least one potentially key 
> avenue toward open access, viz., endowment funding, is available to 
> nonprofits in a way it is not to for-profit publishers. Both nonprofit and 
> for-profit publishers can operate on the basis of having the market mechanism 
> be that by which they fund their businesses, but only nonprofits have these 
> nonmarket-based alternatives (which also include university subsidies to 
> presses) to explore as well. That is a basic difference that will determine 
> what the limits of "common ground" can be.
>  
> Sandy Thatcher
> From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  on 
> behalf of Glenn Hampson 
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM
> To: 'Kathleen Shearer' ; 
> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com ; 
> scholc...@lists.ala.org ; 'Global Open Access List 
> (Successor of AmSci)' 
> Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> Communications: A Call for Action
>  
> Hi Kathleen, Richard,
> Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. 
> As you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today 
> (http://plan-a.world). Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action plan, representing five 
> years of deep thinking that OSI participants have invested in the many 
> questions related to the future of scholarly communication reform.
> Plan A looks at the “bibliodiversity” challenge a little differently. For 
> OSI, diversity has also meant inclusion---listening to everyone’s ideas 
> (including publishers), valuing everyone’s input, trying to develop a 
> complete understanding of the scholarly communication landscape, and trying 
> to reach a point where we can work together on common ground toward goals 
> that serve all of us.
> We have found over the course of our work that most everyone in the scholarly 
> communication community recognizes the same challenges on the road ahead, we 
> all have the same needs, and we all suffer from the same inability to see the 
> full picture ourselves and to make change by ourselves. Fulfilling the vision 
> of bibliodiversity will mean valuing everyone’s perspective of and 
> contribution to the scholarly communication system, and truly working 
> together across our real and perceived divides to achieve, together, what is 
> in the best interest of research and society.
> OSI’s common ground paper provides a deeper look at this common ground and 
> some of the approaches suggested by OSI participants. The summary version 
> will be published soon by Emerald Open; for 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi Kathleen,

 

I wish you well with your work and am interested in helping. But if I may, I’d 
like to reply to two points in your email. The first is with regard to 
“ambition.” I think it’s fair to say that both of these efforts are on the 
audacious end of the ambition scale. Our view, however---which I think is more 
reflective of the broad, global scholcomm community---is that we shouldn’t 
predefine the end goal as being “full open access” because (a) not everyone 
agrees with this approach (many prefer some other state, like “more open”), and 
(b) open means many different things to many different people in the open 
space---open has been adopted and coopted in a wide variety of ways. So, saying 
in advance that there is only one true way means we may end up with much lower 
levels of open if we can’t get everything we want.

 

Second, I mention your “least common denominator” argument in the Common Ground 
paper. It’s a reasonable point for sure, and one that we’ve heard for years in 
OSI. Here’s an excerpt from pages 12-14 that tries to speak to this concern 
(the argument continues beyond page 14---this is just the intro):

… the central premise of this paper is that by building on the common ground we 
have in this community we have a better chance of developing the right 
solutions for the future of open research in the right order and for the right 
reasons, and that these solutions will have a better chance of being adopted 
and sustained and will allow the full potential of open to flourish. From this 
common ground, and with common global action we can not only realize the full 
potential of open but also solve all the connected issues in this space, from 
affordability to predatory publishing to academia’s publish or perish culture. 

A leap of faith?

Does it require a leap of faith to agree with this premise? Yes, most 
definitely. There are many brilliant and passionate experts in this community 
who believe common ground is a mirage—that only limited or unilateral actions 
will lead to global open reforms in the near future; or that global action has 
no chance of happening so it’s better to take what we can get; or that global 
action will only achieve “watered down” open that doesn’t immediately satisfy 
our most ambitious plans. Jon Tennant summarizes other perspectives on this 
leap of faith (Tennant 2020):

First, [there is such a diversity of principles, practices and outputs involved 
that] a single, unified, comprehensive and widely-accepted consensus definition 
[of open scholarship] is probably not sufficient (or even desirable), unless 
such a definition readily embraces this diversity (e.g., as the Open 
Scholarship Initiative seems to do). Second, there remains a need to rigorously 
define and enforce the philosophy, values, and principles of Open Scholarship, 
and explore how these underpin the practices, and to have consensus reached on 
this within the scholarly community. 

This would address the lack of common understanding, which has impeded the 
widespread adoption of the strategic direction and goals behind Open 
Scholarship, prevented it from becoming a true social ‘movement’, and separated 
researchers into disintegrated groups with differing, and often contested, 
definitions and levels of adoption of openness (Tennant, Beamer, et al. 2019). 
Rebecca Willen has also identified that there might be two, perhaps three, 
different sub-movements that intersect in different ways, involving ‘open 
science’, ‘replicable science’, and ‘justice-oriented science’…. Alternatively, 
it could be the case that now, open research is diffused in such a wide variety 
of ways that there cannot plausibly be a single, cohesive community and set of 
practices that define it…. Instead, Open Scholarship, Open Research, and Open 
Science might best be thought of as overlapping/intersecting ‘boundary objects’ 
(Moore 2017) that represent this inherent diversity.

Broadly speaking, then, the difference in approach between the leapers and the 
non-leapers is that we can be inclusive or exclusive with our efforts—inclusive 
if we want to reach a broad, global, sustainable agreement; or exclusive if we 
believe that narrow, focused efforts are more practical, desirable and/or 
achievable. In the international scholarly communication community today, we 
see a large number of exclusive arrangements—from bilateral agreements between 
universities and publishers; to government mandates for domestically-funded 
research; to coordination between similarly focused advocacy groups or 
infrastructure groups (like those working to improve institutional repositories 
or editorial standards). These efforts are in addition to a vast multitude of 
unilateral reform efforts, from institutions creating their own one-off open 
access policies to publishers launching new open products and services to a new 
business ideas emerging featuring new approaches to peer review management 
(like F1000), 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Kathleen Shearer]

Hi Richard,

I didn’t notice your question about cOAlition S overlap with COAR. There is 
probably some small overlap in institutional membership, but most of the COAR 
members are not funders and cOAlition S members generally are funders. That 
said, COAR and cOAlition S are working together in the area of repositories. 

In terms of collaboration, I have been aware of Glen’s initiative, but my 
co-authors and I (as well as many others) have a more ambitious goal. That is, 
to move towards full, open access and at the same time support and nurture 
bibliodiversity. 

In terms of collaboration, I think the “big tent” strategy can too easily 
result in lowest common denominator, watered-down objectives as well as erase 
any local, diverse, unique perspectives. A much more effective approach would 
be (and I reiterate) to develop regional or national strategies between 
funders, universities, libraries and researchers + international engagement 
across each community (like Plan S for funders or COAR for repositories).

And, in response to Heather, of course the translation technologies are not 
perfect, but this is about having “good enough” tools to support global 
communications, while also ensuring local populations have access to their 
local scientific and scholarly output.

Best, Kathleen


Kathleen Shearer
Executive Director
Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)
www.coar-repositories.org



> On Apr 20, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Richard Poynder 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for this Glenn, the fact that these two initiatives have emerged 
> within days of each other without any apparent co-ordination (presumably 
> because neither knew about the other one?) makes me wonder whether a new 
> spirit of collaboration and cohesiveness is indeed emerging. 
>  
> I also wonder about the compatibility of the two groups. The Call for Action 
> document appears to be a scholar-led initiative expressing concern about the 
> role that what are referred to as the oligopolists are playing in the 
> scholarly publishing space. For instance, it states, “For decades, commercial 
> companies in the academic publishing sector have been carrying out portfolio 
> building strategies based on mergers and acquisitions of large companies as 
> well as buying up small publishers or journals. The result of this has been a 
> concentration of players in the sector, which today is dominated by a small 
> number of companies who own thousands of journals and dozens of presses.”
>  
> OSI appears to have been receiving funding from precisely these kind of 
> companies, including legacy publishers and other for-profit organisations 
> (http://osiglobal.org/sponsors/ ). In fact, 
> in 2019 it seems to have received funding only from for-profit organisations. 
> Or am I misreading? I realise the sums concerned are small, but it does make 
> me wonder whether OSI can really do meaningful business with the authors of 
> the Call to Action.
>  
> I realise you were anticipating “a few boo birds” on mailing lists on the 
> announcement of Plan A 
> (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/osi2016-25/J9dJdeLyIng/0ryVgZ78AgAJ 
> ) 
> , and perhaps you will view me as one of those boo birds. However I do wish 
> both initiatives all the very best and I hope something good can come of 
> them. My main concern is that no one has yet solved the collective action 
> problem.
>  
> I also wish that Kathleen had answered this part of my question: “How many 
> members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S?"
>  
> Richard Poynder
>  
>  
> From: Glenn Hampson  
> Sent: 20 April 2020 16:05
> To: 'Kathleen Shearer' ; 
> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; 'Global Open Access 
> List (Successor of AmSci)' 
> Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> Communications: A Call for Action
>  
> Hi Kathleen, Richard,
> Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. 
> As you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today 
> (http://plan-a.world ). Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action 
> plan, representing five years of deep thinking that OSI participants have 
> invested in the many questions related to the future of scholarly 
> communication reform.
> Plan A looks at the “bibliodiversity” challenge a little differently. For 
> OSI, diversity has also meant inclusion---listening to everyone’s ideas 
> (including publishers), valuing everyone’s input, trying to develop a 
> complete understanding of the scholarly communication landscape, and trying 
> to reach a point where we can work together on common ground toward goals 
> that serve all of us.
> We have found over the course of our work that most everyone in the scholarly 
> communication community recognizes the same challenges on the road ahead, we 
> all have the same needs, and we 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi David,

 

I encourage you to read the paper and let me know what you think (on-list or 
direct): 
http://plan-a.world/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/OSI-policy-perspective-2-final.pdf.
 I apologize for the length of this---the summary version hasn’t been published 
yet.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



 

 

 

From: David Wojick  
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM
To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray 
Cc: Kathleen Shearer ; 
richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access 
List (Successor of AmSci) ; Glenn Hampson 

Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action

 

I suspect there are lots of limits to common ground. In fact the hypothesis 
that there is significant common ground strikes me as untested, much less 
proven, especially if one includes the more radical positions.

David Wojick


On Apr 20, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu> > wrote:

I have two brief comments to add to this thread.

 

1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that automatic translation, 
however imperfect, could be satisfactory for certain scholarly purposes but not 
others.  We don;t always need an elegant translation to get the gist of what is 
being said, and that may suffice for certain purposes, say, in background 
reading. On the other hand, I have always opposed the CC BY license as 
inadequate it deprives the author of control over quality in translation, which 
is VERY important to scholars at least in the HSS fields, if not in all.  Once 
a poor translation is done, motivation (especially market-based) declines for 
doing a better one.

 

2) As for "common ground," of course there is common ground to be found amongst 
all types of publishers, but I see a fundamental "divide" between nonprofit and 
for-profit publishers in that at least one potentially key avenue toward open 
access, viz., endowment funding, is available to nonprofits in a way it is not 
to for-profit publishers. Both nonprofit and for-profit publishers can operate 
on the basis of having the market mechanism be that by which they fund their 
businesses, but only nonprofits have these nonmarket-based alternatives (which 
also include university subsidies to presses) to explore as well. That is a 
basic difference that will determine what the limits of "common ground" can be.

 

Sandy Thatcher

  _  

From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org   
mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> > on 
behalf of Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> >
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM
To: 'Kathleen Shearer' mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> >; richard.poyn...@btinternet.com 
  mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> >; scholc...@lists.ala.org 
  mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> >; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of 
AmSci)' mailto:goal@eprints.org> >
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action 

 

Hi Kathleen, Richard, 

Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. As 
you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today 
(http://plan-a.world 

 ). Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action plan, representing five years of deep 
thinking that OSI participants have invested in the many questions related to 
the future of scholarly communication reform. 

Plan A looks at the “bibliodiversity” challenge a little differently. For OSI, 
diversity has also meant inclusion---listening to everyone’s ideas (including 
publishers), valuing everyone’s input, trying to develop a complete 
understanding of the scholarly communication landscape, and trying to reach a 
point where we can work together on common ground toward goals that serve all 
of us. 

We have found over the course of our work that most everyone in the scholarly 
communication community recognizes the same challenges on the road ahead, we 
all have the same needs, and we all suffer from the same inability to see the 
full picture ourselves and to make change by ourselves. Fulfilling the vision 
of bibliodiversity will mean valuing everyone’s perspective of and contribution 
to the scholarly communication system, and truly working together across our 
real and perceived divides to achieve, together, what is in the best interest 
of research and society.

OSI’s common ground paper provides a deeper look at this common ground and some 
of the approaches suggested by OSI participants. The summary version will be 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[David Wojick]

I suspect there are lots of limits to common ground. In fact the hypothesis 
that there is significant common ground strikes me as untested, much less 
proven, especially if one includes the more radical positions.

David Wojick

> On Apr 20, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray  wrote:
> 
> I have two brief comments to add to this thread.
> 
> 1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that automatic translation, 
> however imperfect, could be satisfactory for certain scholarly purposes but 
> not others.  We don;t always need an elegant translation to get the gist of 
> what is being said, and that may suffice for certain purposes, say, in 
> background reading. On the other hand, I have always opposed the CC BY 
> license as inadequate it deprives the author of control over quality in 
> translation, which is VERY important to scholars at least in the HSS fields, 
> if not in all.  Once a poor translation is done, motivation (especially 
> market-based) declines for doing a better one.
> 
> 2) As for "common ground," of course there is common ground to be found 
> amongst all types of publishers, but I see a fundamental "divide" between 
> nonprofit and for-profit publishers in that at least one potentially key 
> avenue toward open access, viz., endowment funding, is available to 
> nonprofits in a way it is not to for-profit publishers. Both nonprofit and 
> for-profit publishers can operate on the basis of having the market mechanism 
> be that by which they fund their businesses, but only nonprofits have these 
> nonmarket-based alternatives (which also include university subsidies to 
> presses) to explore as well. That is a basic difference that will determine 
> what the limits of "common ground" can be.
> 
> Sandy Thatcher
> From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  on 
> behalf of Glenn Hampson 
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM
> To: 'Kathleen Shearer' ; 
> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com ; 
> scholc...@lists.ala.org ; 'Global Open Access List 
> (Successor of AmSci)' 
> Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> Communications: A Call for Action
>  
> Hi Kathleen, Richard,
> Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. 
> As you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today 
> (http://plan-a.world). Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action plan, representing five 
> years of deep thinking that OSI participants have invested in the many 
> questions related to the future of scholarly communication reform.
> Plan A looks at the “bibliodiversity” challenge a little differently. For 
> OSI, diversity has also meant inclusion---listening to everyone’s ideas 
> (including publishers), valuing everyone’s input, trying to develop a 
> complete understanding of the scholarly communication landscape, and trying 
> to reach a point where we can work together on common ground toward goals 
> that serve all of us.
> We have found over the course of our work that most everyone in the scholarly 
> communication community recognizes the same challenges on the road ahead, we 
> all have the same needs, and we all suffer from the same inability to see the 
> full picture ourselves and to make change by ourselves. Fulfilling the vision 
> of bibliodiversity will mean valuing everyone’s perspective of and 
> contribution to the scholarly communication system, and truly working 
> together across our real and perceived divides to achieve, together, what is 
> in the best interest of research and society.
> OSI’s common ground paper provides a deeper look at this common ground and 
> some of the approaches suggested by OSI participants. The summary version 
> will be published soon by Emerald Open; for now, the full-length version is 
> available under the resources tab of the Plan A website.
> My short answer to your questions, Richard, about practical matters like how 
> all this change is going to transpire and through what mechanisms, is that 
> for us, this needs to be decided by Plan A signatories (and will be). This 
> effort is designed to tie into UNESCO’s ongoing open science roadmap work 
> (which OSI is helping with). UNESCO’s plan will be presented to the UN in 
> late 2021. The longer answer is that the real value in this conversation will 
> come as we “expand the pie.” This isn’t about looking for compromise 
> positions between read-only access and read-reuse, or between zero and 
> 6-month embargo periods. It’s about truly working together on common 
> interests, and thinking through issues in a way we haven’t before as a 
> community (in a large-scale, diverse, high level, policy-oriented sense).
> I expect our efforts will cross paths in the years ahead, Kathleen. We would 
> be honored to collaborate and contribute to your work.
> Best regards to you both,
> Glenn
>  
> Glenn Hampson
> Executive Director
> Science Communication Institute (SCI)
> Program Director
> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
> 
>  
>  
> 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi Richard,

 

The sums are indeed vanishingly small---US$5000 in late 2019, and only after 
lots of begging on my part  Commercial publishers are, as far as I can tell, 
in a serious “hunkering down” mode at the moment, at least with regard to 
supporting efforts like OSI that are trying to encourage more connection and 
collaboration. Prior to 2019, all publishers (including commercial publishers) 
contributed about one quarter of the overall budget for our 2016, 2017, and 
2018 conferences and work (the rest was contributed by UNESCO, foundations, and 
participants themselves). Without this support, we wouldn’t have been able to 
pay for travel expenses for participants from Africa, Latin America, SE Asia, 
and other locales where traveling to Washington DC costs more than a few 
hundred dollars. As you know, sponsors have zero input into our policy 
deliberations---none have ever asked for or received special dispensation. 

 

All this said, I honestly feel like this entire line of thinking about who 
should be allowed to contribute to the scholarly communication conversation is 
an affront (I’m not saying you started it, but it just doesn’t seem to go 
away). There is hardly a scholarly communication conference in the 2010-2018 
time frame that didn’t include publisher support, and gladly. Publishers have 
been a willing and vital part of this conversation for generations. The whole 
mindset now that we don’t like publishers so they should be shunned is a red 
herring and is keeping us from working together in common cause toward goals 
that we all support.

 

Personally, I worry more about the mindset of those who are entirely closed to 
working with the for-profit sector on the future of open research. There is no 
need to create this artificial barrier to progress. We can all work together 
effectively. We all have a variety of motives---as we do in every other 
enterprise in life. But in this case, we also all share a wealth of common 
ground, not the least of which is to improve research and improve the value of 
research to society. I think we can build a very effective future on this 
common ground instead of continuing along the path where we divide our 
community into those whose motives are “pure,” and those who also look to do 
this work in a sustainable business manner (which may involve making money so 
you’re not always and solely dependent on the largess of foundations and 
governments to ensure success). There should be room enough in this massive 
undertaking for everyone.

 

My best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



 

 

From: Richard Poynder  
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 9:40 AM
To: 'Glenn Hampson' ; 'Kathleen Shearer' 
; richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; 
scholc...@lists.ala.org; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' 

Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action

 

Thanks for this Glenn, the fact that these two initiatives have emerged within 
days of each other without any apparent co-ordination (presumably because 
neither knew about the other one?) makes me wonder whether a new spirit of 
collaboration and cohesiveness is indeed emerging.  

 

I also wonder about the compatibility of the two groups. The Call for Action 
document appears to be a scholar-led initiative expressing concern about the 
role that what are referred to as the oligopolists are playing in the scholarly 
publishing space. For instance, it states, “For decades, commercial companies 
in the academic publishing sector have been carrying out portfolio building 
strategies based on mergers and acquisitions of large companies as well as 
buying up small publishers or journals. The result of this has been a 
concentration of players in the sector, which today is dominated by a small 
number of companies who own thousands of journals and dozens of presses.”

 

OSI appears to have been receiving funding from precisely these kind of 
companies, including legacy publishers and other for-profit organisations 
(http://osiglobal.org/sponsors/). In fact, in 2019 it seems to have received 
funding only from for-profit organisations. Or am I misreading? I realise the 
sums concerned are small, but it does make me wonder whether OSI can really do 
meaningful business with the authors of the Call to Action. 

 

I realise you were anticipating “a few boo birds” on mailing lists on the 
announcement of Plan A 
(https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/osi2016-25/J9dJdeLyIng/0ryVgZ78AgAJ) , 
and perhaps you will view me as one of those boo birds. However I do wish both 
initiatives all the very best and I hope something good can come of them. My 
main concern is that no one has yet solved the collective action problem. 

 

I also wish that Kathleen had answered this part of my question: “How many 
members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S?"

 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[David Prosser]

I also wish that Kathleen had answered this part of my question: “How many 
members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S?"

There is a public list of COAR members and a public list of signatories to Plan 
S.  I would have thought that if somebody want to know the level of overlap 
they could work it for themselves...

David




From: goal-boun...@eprints.org  on behalf of Richard 
Poynder 
Sent: 20 April 2020 17:40
To: 'Glenn Hampson' ; 'Kathleen Shearer' 
; richard.poyn...@btinternet.com 
; scholc...@lists.ala.org 
; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' 

Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action


Thanks for this Glenn, the fact that these two initiatives have emerged within 
days of each other without any apparent co-ordination (presumably because 
neither knew about the other one?) makes me wonder whether a new spirit of 
collaboration and cohesiveness is indeed emerging.



I also wonder about the compatibility of the two groups. The Call for Action 
document appears to be a scholar-led initiative expressing concern about the 
role that what are referred to as the oligopolists are playing in the scholarly 
publishing space. For instance, it states, “For decades, commercial companies 
in the academic publishing sector have been carrying out portfolio building 
strategies based on mergers and acquisitions of large companies as well as 
buying up small publishers or journals. The result of this has been a 
concentration of players in the sector, which today is dominated by a small 
number of companies who own thousands of journals and dozens of presses.”



OSI appears to have been receiving funding from precisely these kind of 
companies, including legacy publishers and other for-profit organisations 
(http://osiglobal.org/sponsors/). In fact, in 2019 it seems to have received 
funding only from for-profit organisations. Or am I misreading? I realise the 
sums concerned are small, but it does make me wonder whether OSI can really do 
meaningful business with the authors of the Call to Action.



I realise you were anticipating “a few boo birds” on mailing lists on the 
announcement of Plan A 
(https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/osi2016-25/J9dJdeLyIng/0ryVgZ78AgAJ) , 
and perhaps you will view me as one of those boo birds. However I do wish both 
initiatives all the very best and I hope something good can come of them. My 
main concern is that no one has yet solved the collective action problem.



I also wish that Kathleen had answered this part of my question: “How many 
members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S?"



Richard Poynder





From: Glenn Hampson 
Sent: 20 April 2020 16:05
To: 'Kathleen Shearer' ; 
richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; 'Global Open Access 
List (Successor of AmSci)' 
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action



Hi Kathleen, Richard,

Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. As 
you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today 
(http://plan-a.world). Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action plan, representing five 
years of deep thinking that OSI participants have invested in the many 
questions related to the future of scholarly communication reform.

Plan A looks at the “bibliodiversity” challenge a little differently. For OSI, 
diversity has also meant inclusion---listening to everyone’s ideas (including 
publishers), valuing everyone’s input, trying to develop a complete 
understanding of the scholarly communication landscape, and trying to reach a 
point where we can work together on common ground toward goals that serve all 
of us.

We have found over the course of our work that most everyone in the scholarly 
communication community recognizes the same challenges on the road ahead, we 
all have the same needs, and we all suffer from the same inability to see the 
full picture ourselves and to make change by ourselves. Fulfilling the vision 
of bibliodiversity will mean valuing everyone’s perspective of and contribution 
to the scholarly communication system, and truly working together across our 
real and perceived divides to achieve, together, what is in the best interest 
of research and society.

OSI’s common ground paper provides a deeper look at this common ground and some 
of the approaches suggested by OSI participants. The summary version will be 
published soon by Emerald Open; for now, the full-length version is available 
under the resources tab of the Plan A website.

My short answer to your questions, Richard, about practical matters like how 
all this change is going to transpire and through what mechanisms, is that for 
us, this needs to be decided by Plan A signatories (and will be). This effort 
is designed to tie into UNESCO’s ongoing open science roadmap work (which OSI 
is helping with). UNESCO’s plan will 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Thatcher, Sanford Gray]

I have two brief comments to add to this thread.

1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that automatic translation, 
however imperfect, could be satisfactory for certain scholarly purposes but not 
others.  We don;t always need an elegant translation to get the gist of what is 
being said, and that may suffice for certain purposes, say, in background 
reading. On the other hand, I have always opposed the CC BY license as 
inadequate it deprives the author of control over quality in translation, which 
is VERY important to scholars at least in the HSS fields, if not in all.  Once 
a poor translation is done, motivation (especially market-based) declines for 
doing a better one.

2) As for "common ground," of course there is common ground to be found amongst 
all types of publishers, but I see a fundamental "divide" between nonprofit and 
for-profit publishers in that at least one potentially key avenue toward open 
access, viz., endowment funding, is available to nonprofits in a way it is not 
to for-profit publishers. Both nonprofit and for-profit publishers can operate 
on the basis of having the market mechanism be that by which they fund their 
businesses, but only nonprofits have these nonmarket-based alternatives (which 
also include university subsidies to presses) to explore as well. That is a 
basic difference that will determine what the limits of "common ground" can be.

Sandy Thatcher

From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  on 
behalf of Glenn Hampson 
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM
To: 'Kathleen Shearer' ; 
richard.poyn...@btinternet.com ; 
scholc...@lists.ala.org ; 'Global Open Access List 
(Successor of AmSci)' 
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action


Hi Kathleen, Richard,

Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. As 
you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today 
(http://plan-a.world).
 Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action plan, representing five years of deep thinking 
that OSI participants have invested in the many questions related to the future 
of scholarly communication reform.

Plan A looks at the “bibliodiversity” challenge a little differently. For OSI, 
diversity has also meant inclusion---listening to everyone’s ideas (including 
publishers), valuing everyone’s input, trying to develop a complete 
understanding of the scholarly communication landscape, and trying to reach a 
point where we can work together on common ground toward goals that serve all 
of us.

We have found over the course of our work that most everyone in the scholarly 
communication community recognizes the same challenges on the road ahead, we 
all have the same needs, and we all suffer from the same inability to see the 
full picture ourselves and to make change by ourselves. Fulfilling the vision 
of bibliodiversity will mean valuing everyone’s perspective of and contribution 
to the scholarly communication system, and truly working together across our 
real and perceived divides to achieve, together, what is in the best interest 
of research and society.

OSI’s common ground paper provides a deeper look at this common ground and some 
of the approaches suggested by OSI participants. The summary version will be 
published soon by Emerald Open; for now, the full-length version is available 
under the resources tab of the Plan A website.

My short answer to your questions, Richard, about practical matters like how 
all this change is going to transpire and through what mechanisms, is that for 
us, this needs to be decided by Plan A signatories (and will be). This effort 
is designed to tie into UNESCO’s ongoing open science roadmap work (which OSI 
is helping with). UNESCO’s plan will be presented to the UN in late 2021. The 
longer answer is that the real value in this conversation will come as we 
“expand the pie.” This isn’t about looking for compromise positions between 
read-only access and read-reuse, or between zero and 6-month embargo periods. 
It’s about truly working together on common interests, and thinking through 
issues in a way we haven’t before as a community (in a large-scale, diverse, 
high level, policy-oriented sense).

I expect our efforts will cross paths in the years ahead, Kathleen. We would be 
honored to collaborate and contribute to your work.

Best regards to you both,

Glenn



Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi Kathleen, Richard, 

Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. As 
you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today 
(http://plan-a.world). Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action plan, representing five 
years of deep thinking that OSI participants have invested in the many 
questions related to the future of scholarly communication reform. 

Plan A looks at the “bibliodiversity” challenge a little differently. For OSI, 
diversity has also meant inclusion---listening to everyone’s ideas (including 
publishers), valuing everyone’s input, trying to develop a complete 
understanding of the scholarly communication landscape, and trying to reach a 
point where we can work together on common ground toward goals that serve all 
of us. 

We have found over the course of our work that most everyone in the scholarly 
communication community recognizes the same challenges on the road ahead, we 
all have the same needs, and we all suffer from the same inability to see the 
full picture ourselves and to make change by ourselves. Fulfilling the vision 
of bibliodiversity will mean valuing everyone’s perspective of and contribution 
to the scholarly communication system, and truly working together across our 
real and perceived divides to achieve, together, what is in the best interest 
of research and society.

OSI’s common ground paper provides a deeper look at this common ground and some 
of the approaches suggested by OSI participants. The summary version will be 
published soon by Emerald Open; for now, the full-length version is available 
under the resources tab of the Plan A website.

My short answer to your questions, Richard, about practical matters like how 
all this change is going to transpire and through what mechanisms, is that for 
us, this needs to be decided by Plan A signatories (and will be). This effort 
is designed to tie into UNESCO’s ongoing open science roadmap work (which OSI 
is helping with). UNESCO’s plan will be presented to the UN in late 2021. The 
longer answer is that the real value in this conversation will come as we 
“expand the pie.” This isn’t about looking for compromise positions between 
read-only access and read-reuse, or between zero and 6-month embargo periods. 
It’s about truly working together on common interests, and thinking through 
issues in a way we haven’t before as a community (in a large-scale, diverse, 
high level, policy-oriented sense). 

I expect our efforts will cross paths in the years ahead, Kathleen. We would be 
honored to collaborate and contribute to your work.

Best regards to you both,

Glenn

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)



 

 

From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  On 
Behalf Of Kathleen Shearer (via scholcomm Mailing List)
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 6:12 AM
To: richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access 
List (Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: 
A Call for Action

 

Hello Richard,

 

Yes, indeed, you are right, the coordinated actions required for 
bibliodiversity are similar to the efforts needed to deal with the covid19 
pandemic. 

 

For your second question, the way I am envisioning the collaborations taking 
place is as follows: much of the discussions across the different stakeholder 
communities will happen at the national and sometimes regional level, while the 
international coordination will take place, in parallel, within each different 
stakeholder community. Although not a perfect solution, because some countries 
are more cohesive than others, many communities already have fairly strong 
regional and international relationships with their peers, including scholarly 
societies, libraries, funders (e.g. the funders forum at RDA), governments, as 
well as publishers, and repositories.





1.   Are translation technologies adequate to the task envisaged for them 
in the document?





I’m not an expert on translation technologies, but my colleagues tell me that 
for some languages the technologies are quite far along already and work well 
(e.g. Spanish, French, Portuguese, Chinese), for others it will take a bit 
longer. They are suggesting a timeline for most languages to have fairly good 
translation tools available within the next 5 years.





3.   Might it be that the different interests and priorities of these 
stakeholders are such that joint action is not possible, certainly in a way 
that would satisfy all the stakeholders? After all, funders got involved with 
open access because after 20+ years the other stakeholders had failed to work 
together effectively. However, in doing so, these funders appear (certainly in 
Europe) to be pushing the world in a direction that the authors of this report 
deprecate. What, practically, can the movement do to achieve the 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 6:39 AM Richard Poynder 
wrote:

> “Designing a system that fosters bibliodiversity, while also supporting
> research at the international level is extremely challenging. It means
> achieving a careful balance between unity and diversity; international and
> local; and careful coordination across different stakeholder communities
> and regions in order to avoid a fragmented ecosystem.”
>
>
>
> That seems to me to be a key paragraph in this document. And the pandemic
> — which requires that information is shared very quickly and broadly, and
> across borders — does certainly highlight the fact that the current
> scholarly communication system leaves a lot to be desired.
>
>
>
First , thanks for raising this and also quoting me.
I am going to be challenging as these are challenging times. I play the
role of a socratic gadly and I will upset people.

I'm taking the view of the citizen in the street - in the Global South -
who wants answers from academic knowledge. Not in 5 years time, not next
month,
NOW.
If the repository system cannot address the needs of citizens in a time of
urgency then it has failed the citizen. If it's creating an academia-only
product then citizens can rightfully challenge it.
So, if you are still reading I call on the repository system to start
supporting the need for universal knowledge. Everywhere.
And I'm going to set a timescale.

To create a universal interface to the worlds repositories by the end of
JUNE 2020 (2020-06-30)

That is what emergencies demand.
Now most of you will be dismissing this as rubbish.
But it's possible.
My colleague Rick Smith-Unna, when a graduate student at Cambridge, and
contracting to ContentMine, in 2015 wrote a wrapper for EuropePMC
repository to systematic download articles in bulk (500 in a minute). It
transforms the way that citizens can use the system. It probably took him
about 2 weeks. He's a genius but there are geniuses out there who want to
help.

The goal of the repository system in the COVID age must put citizens at the
centre. I've had a request from a Spanish forensic scientist to answer the
question:
"to collect as many scientific articles as possible regarding the
persistence of Covid-19 in different surfaces and materials that are
commonly studied in a forensic setting, such as samples obtained form
autopsies (skin, bones and body fluids), porous and non-porous surfaces and
textiles.
"
I have no doubt that many useful articles are contained in the world's
repository system.
It should be able to help with that, now. And without specialist
intermediaries.

Since you ask for action, which I agree, IMO the first action should be to
build systems that work. Within 2 months. Not perfectly, not universal but
work.

Rick built a wrapper for EuropePMC which with only one or two others (HAL
and some other national repos) is the only repository that can support a
global system. I don't use CORE because I have to surrender my details to
get an API. I have tried to use US repos of theses and couldn't get past
the rage of landing pagfes and controls.
Biorxiv doesn't yet have an API so I've built an interface in the last two
weeks. It's clunky but I can download 600 papers on COVID in an hour,
automatically. If the same was done globally, with a single point of entry,
then we'd have a modern knowledge system.

So how to do it?
* set a goal and timescale as I have done
* get the worlds brightest grad students (probably 3rd year as they already
know all the problems of scholarly literature) to work with your tech
people and bibliography people to build a rapid prototype for mass download
of raw text from your repo. The grad students are the most important part
of this.

and then just go ahead, starting today.

And my daily call, if anyone wants to help us extract knowledge about COVID
automatically, please join our https://github.com/petermr/openVirus
I am disappointed that I'v had no response from readers of this list.

P.










-- 
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign
with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Richard Poynder]

“Designing a system that fosters bibliodiversity, while also supporting
research at the international level is extremely challenging. It means
achieving a careful balance between unity and diversity; international and
local; and careful coordination across different stakeholder communities
and regions in order to avoid a fragmented ecosystem.”



That seems to me to be a key paragraph in this document. And the pandemic —
which requires that information is shared very quickly and broadly, and
across borders — does certainly highlight the fact that the current
scholarly communication system leaves a lot to be desired.



I have three questions:



   1. Are translation technologies adequate to the task envisaged for them
   in the document?



   1. How is it envisaged that researchers, policymakers, funders, service
   providers, universities and libraries from around the world will all work
   together, and by means of what forum? I know there are a number of
   organisations and initiatives focused on the different issues raised in the
   document (not least COAR) but how exactly, and by what means, will these
   different stakeholders coordinate and work together to achieve the stated
   aims? I know there are a number of library-led organisations (like COAR),
   but is not a more diverse forum (in terms of the different stakeholders)
   needed? How many members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S for
   instance?



   1. Might it be that the different interests and priorities of these
   stakeholders are such that joint action is not possible, certainly in a way
   that would satisfy all the stakeholders? After all, funders got involved
   with open access because after 20+ years the other stakeholders had failed
   to work together effectively. However, in doing so, these funders appear
   (certainly in Europe) to be pushing the world in a direction that the
   authors of this report deprecate. What, practically, can the movement do to
   achieve the aspirations of the document beyond making a call to action or
   further declarations?



Richard Poynder



On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 15:53, Kathleen Shearer 
wrote:

> (Apologies for the cross posting)
> Dear all,
>
> *Today, my colleagues and I are issuing a “Call for Action!”*
>
> With the publication of this paper, *Fostering Bibliodiversity in
> Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action*
> ,
> we are calling on the community to make concerted efforts to develop
> strong, community-governed infrastructures that support diversity in
> scholarly communications (referred to as bibliodiversity).
>
> Diversity is an essential characteristic of an optimal scholarly
> communications system. Diversity in services and platforms, funding
> mechanisms, and evaluation measures will allow the research communications
> to accommodate the different workflows, languages, publication outputs, and
> research topics that support the needs and epistemic pluralism of different
> research communities. In addition, diversity reduces the risk of vendor
> lock-in, which inevitably leads to monopoly, monoculture, and high prices.
>
> We are living through unprecedented times, with a global pandemic sweeping
> the world, leading to illness, death, and unparalleled economic upheaval.
> Although our concerns about bibliodiversity have been growing for years,
> the current crisis has exposed the deficiencies in a system that is
> increasingly homogenous and prioritizes profits over the public good.
>
> Stories abound about the urgent need for access to the research
> literature, as illustrated, for example, by this message by Peter
> Murray-Rust posted
>  to
> the GOAL mailing list on March 31, 2020
>
> “My colleague, a software developer, working for free on openVirus
> software,  is spending most of his time working making masks in Cambridge
> Makespace to ship to Addenbrooke’s hospital. When he goes to the literature
> to find literature on masks, their efficacy and use and construction he
> finds paywall after paywall after paywall after paywall ….”
>
> For those who were not in favour of open access before, this global crisis
> should settle the debate once and for all.
>
> We must move away from a pay-to-read world in which researchers,
> practitioners and the public cannot afford to access critical research
> materials, or have to wait for embargo periods to lift before they can
> develop life saving techniques, methods and vaccines. Access to the
> research is simply too important. Yet, pay-to-publish, the open access
> model being advanced by many in the commercial sector, is also
> inappropriate as it places unacceptable financial barriers on researchers’
> abilities to publish.
>
> It is time to reassess some of the basic assumptions related to scholarly
> communications, 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Lindsey MacCallum]

Thank you, Kathleen. COAR's leadership is very much appreciated!

Lindsey


Lindsey MacCallum (she/her)
Archives and Scholarly Communications Librarian
Liaison Librarian to the Humanities
Mount Saint Vincent University Library
166 Bedford Highway, Halifax NS  B3M 2J6
Phone: (902) 457-6402
Email: lindsey.maccal...@msvu.ca
Website: 
http://www.msvu.ca/library
Note that I generally observe email-free evenings and weekends.

The Mount Library & Archives are situated in K'jipuktuk, Mi’kma’ki, the 
ancestral, unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq.

From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  on 
behalf of Kathleen Shearer 
Sent: April 15, 2020 11:52 AM
To: scholc...@lists.ala.org ; Global Open Access List 
(Successor of AmSci) 
Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A 
Call for Action


(Apologies for the cross posting)

Dear all,

Today, my colleagues and I are issuing a “Call for Action!”

With the publication of this paper, Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for 
Action,
 we are calling on the community to make concerted efforts to develop strong, 
community-governed infrastructures that support diversity in scholarly 
communications (referred to as bibliodiversity).

Diversity is an essential characteristic of an optimal scholarly communications 
system. Diversity in services and platforms, funding mechanisms, and evaluation 
measures will allow the research communications to accommodate the different 
workflows, languages, publication outputs, and research topics that support the 
needs and epistemic pluralism of different research communities. In addition, 
diversity reduces the risk of vendor lock-in, which inevitably leads to 
monopoly, monoculture, and high prices.

We are living through unprecedented times, with a global pandemic sweeping the 
world, leading to illness, death, and unparalleled economic upheaval.  Although 
our concerns about bibliodiversity have been growing for years, the current 
crisis has exposed the deficiencies in a system that is increasingly homogenous 
and prioritizes profits over the public good.

Stories abound about the urgent need for access to the research literature, as 
illustrated, for example, by this message by Peter Murray-Rust 
posted to 
the GOAL mailing list on March 31, 2020

“My colleague, a software developer, working for free on openVirus software,  
is spending most of his time working making masks in Cambridge Makespace to 
ship to Addenbrooke’s hospital. When he goes to the literature to find 
literature on masks, their efficacy and use and construction he finds paywall 
after paywall after paywall after paywall ….”

For those who were not in favour of open access before, this global crisis 
should settle the debate once and for all.

We must move away from a pay-to-read world in which researchers, practitioners 
and the public cannot afford to access critical research materials, or have to 
wait for embargo periods to lift before they can develop life saving 
techniques, methods and vaccines. Access to the research is simply too 
important. Yet, pay-to-publish, the open access model being advanced by many in 
the commercial sector, is also inappropriate as it places unacceptable 
financial barriers on researchers’ abilities to publish.

It is time to reassess some of the basic assumptions related to scholarly 
communications, including competition, prestige, and the role of commercial 
entities. The same values that underlie our research and education systems 
should also guide research communications.

To that end, we are calling on researchers, policy makers, funders, service 
providers, universities and libraries from around the world to work together to 
address the issue of bibliodiversity in scholarly communication.

The problems we encounter have never been more complex and urgent, nor has the 
need for solutions been greater. There is a real danger that new budget 
constraints and an increasing proportion of funds directed towards large 
commercial entities could lead to greater homogeneity and monopolization, 
further hampering the free flow of research needed to address the critical 
challenges we face.

Read the blog post 
here
 and full paper here

Kathleen Shearer
Executive Director
Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Joyce Ogburn]

A terrific paper, well argued and cogent. I urge everyone to read it.

Joyce Ogburn

Sent from my iPad

> On Apr 15, 2020, at 10:53 AM, Kathleen Shearer (via scholcomm Mailing List) 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> (Apologies for the cross posting)
> 
> Dear all,
> Today, my colleagues and I are issuing a “Call for Action!”
> 
> With the publication of this paper, Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> Communications: A Call for Action, we are calling on the community to make 
> concerted efforts to develop strong, community-governed infrastructures that 
> support diversity in scholarly communications (referred to as 
> bibliodiversity).
> 
> Diversity is an essential characteristic of an optimal scholarly 
> communications system. Diversity in services and platforms, funding 
> mechanisms, and evaluation measures will allow the research communications to 
> accommodate the different workflows, languages, publication outputs, and 
> research topics that support the needs and epistemic pluralism of different 
> research communities. In addition, diversity reduces the risk of vendor 
> lock-in, which inevitably leads to monopoly, monoculture, and high prices.
> 
> We are living through unprecedented times, with a global pandemic sweeping 
> the world, leading to illness, death, and unparalleled economic upheaval.  
> Although our concerns about bibliodiversity have been growing for years, the 
> current crisis has exposed the deficiencies in a system that is increasingly 
> homogenous and prioritizes profits over the public good.
> 
> Stories abound about the urgent need for access to the research literature, 
> as illustrated, for example, by this message by Peter Murray-Rust posted to 
> the GOAL mailing list on March 31, 2020
> 
> “My colleague, a software developer, working for free on openVirus software,  
> is spending most of his time working making masks in Cambridge Makespace to 
> ship to Addenbrooke’s hospital. When he goes to the literature to find 
> literature on masks, their efficacy and use and construction he finds paywall 
> after paywall after paywall after paywall ….”
> 
> For those who were not in favour of open access before, this global crisis 
> should settle the debate once and for all.
> 
> We must move away from a pay-to-read world in which researchers, 
> practitioners and the public cannot afford to access critical research 
> materials, or have to wait for embargo periods to lift before they can 
> develop life saving techniques, methods and vaccines. Access to the research 
> is simply too important. Yet, pay-to-publish, the open access model being 
> advanced by many in the commercial sector, is also inappropriate as it places 
> unacceptable financial barriers on researchers’ abilities to publish.
> 
> It is time to reassess some of the basic assumptions related to scholarly 
> communications, including competition, prestige, and the role of commercial 
> entities. The same values that underlie our research and education systems 
> should also guide research communications.
> 
> To that end, we are calling on researchers, policy makers, funders, service 
> providers, universities and libraries from around the world to work together 
> to address the issue of bibliodiversity in scholarly communication.
> 
> The problems we encounter have never been more complex and urgent, nor has 
> the need for solutions been greater. There is a real danger that new budget 
> constraints and an increasing proportion of funds directed towards large 
> commercial entities could lead to greater homogeneity and monopolization, 
> further hampering the free flow of research needed to address the critical 
> challenges we face.
> 
> Read the blog post here and full paper here
> 
> 
> Kathleen Shearer
> Executive Director
> Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)
> www.coar-repositories.org
> 
> 
> 
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal