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 > <richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> 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/ <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 > <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 <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > Sent: 20 April 2020 16:05 > To: '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> > 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 <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) <x-msg://152/sci.institute> > Program Director > Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) <x-msg://152/osiglobal.org> > <image003.jpg> <x-msg://152/osiglobal.org> > > > From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org > <mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> <scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org > <mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org>> On Behalf Of Kathleen Shearer (via > scholcomm Mailing List) > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 6:12 AM > To: 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) <goal@eprints.org <mailto:goal@eprints.org>> > 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 aspirations of the document beyond making a call to action or >> further declarations? > > The point of this call to action is to raise awareness with funders and > others about this important issue. I’m not so cynical to think organizational > perspectives can never change. Strategies can (and should) evolve as we gain > a better understanding of the landscape, and adopt new ideas and principles. > We hope that this call to action will have that type of impact. > > And, yes of course not all interests will align, but we are already seeing > more cohesiveness at the national level than in the past. In Canada, where I > am based, for example, the funders, libraries and local Canadian publishers > are now in regular dialogue and collaborating to work on common action items > and to better align policies, funding and infrastructure. This is also > happening in other jurisdictions such as France with its Committee for Open > Science <https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/the-committee-for-open-science/> and > Portugal where the national funder, universities (including libraries and > university presses) and scholarly societies have created and maintain a > national infrastructure for Open Access (hosting repositories and journals) > and aligned policies. > > > All the best, > Kathleen > > > Kathleen Shearer > Executive Director > Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) > www.coar-repositories.org <http://www.coar-repositories.org/> > > > > >> On Apr 16, 2020, at 1:31 AM, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@gmail.com >> <mailto:richard.poyn...@gmail.com>> 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. >> >> I have three questions: >> >> 1. Are translation technologies adequate to the task envisaged for >> them in the document? >> >> 2. 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? >> >> 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 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 <scholc...@lists.ala.org >> <mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>> 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 >>> <https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/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 >>> <http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2020-March/005395.html> 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 >>> <https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/fostering-bibliodiversity-in-scholarly-communications-a-call-for-action/> >>> and full paper here <http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3752923> >>> >>> Kathleen Shearer >>> Executive Director >>> Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) >>> www.coar-repositories.org <http://www.coar-repositories.org/> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Richard Poynder >> > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
