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 <heat...@ourresearch.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:15 AM To: Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> Cc: Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk>; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org>; Samuel Moore <samuel.moor...@gmail.com>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi2016...@googlegroups.com>; scholcomm <scholc...@lists.ala.org> 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 <https://ourresearch.org/> Our Research: We build tools to make scholarly research more open, connected, and reusable—for everyone. follow at <https://twitter.com/researchremix> @researchremix, <https://twitter.com/our_research> @our_research, and @ <https://twitter.com/unpaywall> unpaywall On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org <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 <http://sci.institute> Science Communication Institute (SCI) Program Director <http://osiglobal.org> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) <http://osiglobal.org/> From: Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk <mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk> > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:23 AM To: Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org <mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org <mailto:goal@eprints.org> >; Samuel Moore <samuel.moor...@gmail.com <mailto:samuel.moor...@gmail.com> >; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi2016...@googlegroups.com <mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com> >; scholcomm <scholc...@lists.ala.org <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 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 -- As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <mailto:osi2016-25+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> . To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/006001d617ff%248b0e0720%24a12a1560%24%40nationalscience.org <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/006001d617ff%248b0e0720%24a12a1560%24%40nationalscience.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
