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 <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> 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) <http://sci.institute>* > > *Program Director**Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) > <http://osiglobal.org>* > > <http://osiglobal.org> > > > > > > > > *From:* scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org <scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> *On > Behalf Of *David Wojick > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2020 1:49 PM > *To:* Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > *Cc:* Thatcher, Sanford Gray <s...@psu.edu>; Kathleen Shearer < > m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>; <richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> < > richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>; <scholc...@lists.ala.org> < > 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 > 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 <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) <http://sci.institute>* > > *Program Director**Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) > <http://osiglobal.org>* > > <image003.jpg> <http://osiglobal.org> > > > > *From:* David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us> > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2020 12:05 PM > *To:* Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > *Cc:* Thatcher, Sanford Gray <s...@psu.edu>; Kathleen Shearer < > m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>; <richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> < > richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>; <scholc...@lists.ala.org> < > 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 > > > > 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 <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) <http://sci.institute>* > > *Program Director**Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) > <http://osiglobal.org>* > > <image004.jpg> <http://osiglobal.org> > > > > > > > > *From:* David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us> > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM > *To:* Thatcher, Sanford Gray <s...@psu.edu> > *Cc:* 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>; Glenn Hampson < > 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 <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 <scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> > on behalf of Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM > *To:* 'Kathleen Shearer' <m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>; > richard.poyn...@btinternet.com <richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>; > scholc...@lists.ala.org <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 > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fplan-a.world%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746486702&sdata=HqX4dQyCuH8rAVD32rhxqwt7FR9edEJf6s449J3X550%3D&reserved=0>). > 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) > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsci.institute%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746486702&sdata=pmfSWmYaxAckqRIlpcTNQwDxCZaXo%2BOHnCs8PiDFma0%3D&reserved=0>* > > *Program Director**Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fosiglobal.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746496698&sdata=EzewH25bZr4En9p%2BrvhVI2upp4dC%2FxlIpXUQ0Gp%2FJ5o%3D&reserved=0>* > > <image004.jpg> > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fosiglobal.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746496698&sdata=EzewH25bZr4En9p%2BrvhVI2upp4dC%2FxlIpXUQ0Gp%2FJ5o%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > *From:* scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org <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) <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://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ouvrirlascience.fr%2Fthe-committee-for-open-science%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746496698&sdata=7Vgrf%2Bqq846jvR7%2Fk120ex0ydlB05WTOI5FhwfeAhTk%3D&reserved=0> > 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 > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coar-repositories.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746506694&sdata=9tj%2BvFPB2zBluwBvR%2F%2BjMY7ZZ39uTMPdL%2ByHRbj9HqY%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 2020, at 1:31 AM, Richard Poynder <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> > 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://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coar-repositories.org%2Fnews-updates%2Ffostering-bibliodiversity-in-scholarly-communications-a-call-for-action%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746506694&sdata=GmJtOEAK5Alb%2BxZxA%2F56XPAXwEb1M1aGpNIqjuN4I2Q%3D&reserved=0>, > 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 > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk%2Fpipermail%2Fgoal%2F2020-March%2F005395.html&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746516685&sdata=32VY%2BP9lU992c78uw7yKrXq4rCqbErCOiXmL0sPVYXs%3D&reserved=0> > 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://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coar-repositories.org%2Fnews-updates%2Ffostering-bibliodiversity-in-scholarly-communications-a-call-for-action%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746516685&sdata=NI0KB7aMiy7FD724mBGTXt7BNOkZs3lRoQJqgs2SJT4%3D&reserved=0> > and full paper here > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.5281%2Fzenodo.3752923&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746526679&sdata=Xi%2BI4xj9DZVaH2oX9G7T6buQtWrwNR4E25HuavhFXzQ%3D&reserved=0> > > > > Kathleen Shearer > > Executive Director > > Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) > > www.coar-repositories.org > <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coar-repositories.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746526679&sdata=CegzIz25J80DpFbX3NygflAQVHKPknq8u8sc5jxOtxI%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Richard Poynder > > > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
