Commenting on the second point only for focus: On Dec 31, 2015, at 10:57 AM, "Jean-Claude Guédon" <jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca<mailto:jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca>> wrote:
2. How people are selected, come forward, become leaders, etc. are complex questions. But how do you deal with representing "millions of authors" ? There is no parliament of science that I know of, and no election process exists on a world scale. And the OA community does not coincide with the researcher community (alas). Researchers have collegial governance structures, faculty associations and unions (and their umbrella associations), scholarly and learned societies. Harvard pioneered the OA faculty permissions policy, and others have followed suit. Some scholarly societies have opposed OA, while others have embraced it. My perspective is that a lot more could be done to actively engage researchers in OA policy and strategy (in addition to practice, as so many are). That said, I could be doing more at my own institution; if only I had time, which I suspect is the major barrier to more active engagement for many faculty. h -- Jean-Claude Guédon Professeur titulaire Littérature comparée Université de Montréal <jc-1.jpg> Le mercredi 30 décembre 2015 à 17:07 +0000, Heather Morrison a écrit : Thank you for raising the issue of secrecy in approach. It strikes me that this is an appropriate critical question for the open access movement. Some thoughts follow. I was not invited to the conference, but have mixed feelings. On the plus side, getting together those who pay for subscriptions to figure out how to flip journals to OA strikes me as a very healthy development, and having served as a consortial negotiator in the past I understand the importance of confidentiality to facilitate frank discussions. On the other hand, if we agree on the principle of openness and transparency in government, eg govt representatives and staff have an obligation to publicly reveal their meetings, campaign contributions, etc., why would this principle not also apply to people who work for institutions involved in spending public money (presuming this applies to the organizers and attendees of this event)? From a strategic perspective, those who organize and/or attend an event like this might want to consider the impact on those not invited. If the attendance list was about 100 people, and there are over 10,000 fully OA journals, thousands of repositories and millions of authors who have chosen to make their work open access, as well as many individual OA advocates, one can conclude that well over 99% of the open access movement was excluded from this event. When my government behaves in this fashion (eg secretive trade treaty negotiations), I openly condemn such practices as un-democratic. I cannot speak for anyone else, but note that my immediate reaction is distrust, to assume that the reason for not allowing me to participate or even know what is going on is to force changes that my government knows I would oppose with a transparent approach. Finally, limiting discussions to a few people seems highly likely to limit the ideas and perspectives considered. In summary, while overall I am inclined to see this initiative as a positive step and sympathize with the need for confidentiality for frank discussions, I think this is an opportune moment for the OA movement to reconsider our commitment to open in the senses of transparency and inclusion. Happy holidays! Heather Morrison On Dec 21, 2015, at 5:19 AM, "Richard Poynder" <richard.poyn...@cantab.net<mailto:richard.poyn...@cantab.net>> wrote: The 12th Berlin Conference was held in Germany on December 8th and 9th. The focus of the conference was on “the transformation of subscription journals to Open Access, as outlined in a recent white paper by the Max Planck Digital Library”. In other words, the conference discussed ways of achieving a mass “flipping” of subscription-based journals to open access models. Strangely, Berlin 12 was "by invitation only". This seems odd because holding OA meetings behind closed doors might seem to go against the principles of openness and transparency that were outlined in the 2003 Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. Or is it wrong and/or naïve to think that open access implies openness and transparency in the decision making and processes involved in making open access a reality, as well as of research outputs? Either way, if the strategy of flipping journals becomes the primary means of achieving open access can we not expect to see non-transparent and secret processes become the norm, with the costs and details of the transition taking place outside the purview of the wider OA movement? If that is right, would it matter? Some thoughts here: http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/open-access-slips-into-closed-mode.html Richard Poynder _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org<mailto:GOAL@eprints.org> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
