Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

[David Wojick]

It is not a matter of getting bogged down. The point is that the open access 
movement, like many social movements, includes a broad diversity of concepts as 
to what counts as success. In many cases these concepts are conflicting. In 
this complex context talking about optimizing outcomes is probably unrealistic. 
What we are seeing is progress on many disconnected fronts. That is probably 
the best we can hope for. The notion of somehow globally optimizing governance 
is particularly problematic.

David Wojick
Inside Public Access

On Jun 26, 2020, at 3:54 PM, Glenn Hampson  wrote:


I’ll conclude and sign off as well. My reply to this approach, again with all 
due respect, is that the *only* way to arrive at the proper “principles, 
governance structures, infrastructures, communities, and more that will be 
needed to create the optimal conditions for scholarship to be communicated and 
used around the world,” is to first understand this space better. We can’t just 
declare that we’re done listening and plow ahead with “solutions” without 
regard for impact or consequences. Of course, if we’re of the mindset that this 
search for common ground is just a waste of time or some subterfuge bent on 
delaying open, then we’re not likely to embrace this approach. But if we can 
get past this trust issue (which is a big *if*), then it’s clear that the 
benefits of working together and the future we can create by working together 
are vastly superior to the kind of open future we arrive at by working alone.
 
Best regards---good weekend as well (or as we say here in Seattle, please don’t 
rain again),
 
Glenn
 
 
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

 
 
 
From: Kathleen Shearer  
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 11:35 AM
To: Glenn Hampson 
Cc: David Wojick ; Rob Johnson 
; Heather Morrison 
; scholcomm ; Global Open 
Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; 
radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk; The Open Scholarship Initiative 
; Anis Rahman 
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models
 
Hi all,
 
I don’t want to waste too much time going in circles, so just a short response:
 
The resources below are different ways of conceptualizing open, not really 
definitions. They contribute to a deeper understanding of the concept of open, 
which is a good thing.
 
The knowledge commons is a different issue, and it is what we should be 
addressing at this stage of maturity in the transition to open. This includes 
the principles, governance structures, infrastructures, communities, and more 
that will be needed to create the optimal conditions for scholarship to be 
communicated and used around the world.
 
If we get bogged down in a discussion of definitions, we will never get 
anywhere (but I suspect that "going nowhere" is in the interest of certain 
parties)
 
Anyway, bon weekend! (as they say here in Quebec)
 
Kathleen
 
 
 


On Jun 26, 2020, at 2:08 PM, Glenn Hampson  wrote:
 
In part David, yes---thank you. But I’m also referring to:
 
Knoth and Pontika’s Open Science Taxonomy 
(https://figshare.com/articles/Open_Science_Taxonomy/1508606/3
Fecher and Friesike’s categories of concern regarding open 
(http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2272036)
Moore’s boundary object observations (http://doi.org/10.4000/rfsic.3220)
Willen’s intersecting movements critique 
(https://rmwblogg.wordpress.com/2020/02/29/justice-oriented-science-open-science-and-replicable-science-are-overlapping-but-they-are-not-the-same/)
Bosman & Kramer’s  diversity of definitions assessment 
(https://im2punt0.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/defining-open-science-definitions/)
OSI’s DARTS open spectrum 
(https://journals.gmu.edu/index.php/osi/article/view/1375/1178)
Tkacz’s 2012 essay on the connections between the modern open science movement 
and Karl Popper’s open society theories 
(http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/12-4tkacz_0.pdf)
And more. 
 
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 David Wojick
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 10:30 AM
To: Kathleen Shearer 
Cc: Glenn Hampson ; Rob Johnson 
; Heather Morrison 
; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access List 
(Successor of AmSci) ;  
; The Open Scholarship Initiative 
; Anis Rahman 
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models
 
Glenn is drawing upon lengthy discussions of the problem of multiple 
definitions that we have had at OSI. Looking back I find that I first wrote 
about this issue seven years ago:
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/11/11/open-access-on-the-sea-of-confusion/
 
It might be better to call them concepts or models than definitions, but it 
remains that different people are calling for or allowing very different things 
as being open access. At one extreme we have, for example, the US 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

[Jo De]

Hi all, at this point two requests:
1. Can we now just coin a term that specifically refers to the good/evil
polarity that constantly seeps into our discussions, especially around
definitions of “open access”?
2. Affirmation of the new and useful thoughts that have reliably over the
years become shaken out of these seemingly “circular” discussions conducted
under the OSI list?
Thanks to all!
Joann

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:54 PM Glenn Hampson 
wrote:

> I’ll conclude and sign off as well. My reply to this approach, again with
> all due respect, is that the **only** way to arrive at the proper
> “principles, governance structures, infrastructures, communities, and more
> that will be needed to create the optimal conditions for scholarship to be
> communicated and used around the world,” is to first understand this space
> better. We can’t just declare that we’re done listening and plow ahead with
> “solutions” without regard for impact or consequences. Of course, if we’re
> of the mindset that this search for common ground is just a waste of time
> or some subterfuge bent on delaying open, then we’re not likely to embrace
> this approach. But if we can get past this trust issue (which is a big *
> *if**), then it’s clear that the benefits of working together and the
> future we can create by working together are vastly superior to the kind of
> open future we arrive at by working alone.
>
>
>
> Best regards---good weekend as well (or as we say here in Seattle, please
> don’t rain again),
>
>
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
>
> *Glenn Hampson*
> *Executive Director*
> *Science Communication Institute (SCI) *
>
> *Program Director**Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
> *
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Kathleen Shearer 
> *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2020 11:35 AM
> *To:* Glenn Hampson 
>
> *Cc:* David Wojick ; Rob Johnson <
> rob.john...@research-consulting.com>; Heather Morrison <
> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>; scholcomm ; Global
> Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ;
> radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk; The Open Scholarship Initiative <
> osi2016...@googlegroups.com>; Anis Rahman 
> *Subject:* Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> I don’t want to waste too much time going in circles, so just a short
> response:
>
>
>
> The resources below are different ways of conceptualizing open, not really
> definitions. They contribute to a deeper understanding of the concept of
> open, which is a good thing.
>
>
>
> The knowledge commons is a different issue, and it is what we should be
> addressing at this stage of maturity in the transition to open. This
> includes the principles, governance structures, infrastructures,
> communities, and more that will be needed to create the optimal conditions
> for scholarship to be communicated and used around the world.
>
>
>
> If we get bogged down in a discussion of definitions, we will never get
> anywhere (but I suspect that "going nowhere" is in the interest of certain
> parties)
>
>
>
> Anyway, bon weekend! (as they say here in Quebec)
>
>
>
> Kathleen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2020, at 2:08 PM, Glenn Hampson 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> In part David, yes---thank you. But I’m also referring to:
>
>
>
>- Knoth and Pontika’s Open Science Taxonomy (
>https://figshare.com/articles/Open_Science_Taxonomy/1508606/3
>- Fecher and Friesike’s categories of concern regarding open (
>http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2272036)
>- Moore’s boundary object observations (
>http://doi.org/10.4000/rfsic.3220)
>- Willen’s intersecting movements critique (
>
> https://rmwblogg.wordpress.com/2020/02/29/justice-oriented-science-open-science-and-replicable-science-are-overlapping-but-they-are-not-the-same/
>)
>- Bosman & Kramer’s  diversity of definitions assessment (
>
> https://im2punt0.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/defining-open-science-definitions/
>)
>- OSI’s DARTS open spectrum (
>https://journals.gmu.edu/index.php/osi/article/view/1375/1178)
>- Tkacz’s 2012 essay on the connections between the modern open
>science movement and Karl Popper’s open society theories (
>http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/12-4tkacz_0.pdf)
>- And more.
>
>
>
> 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 *David Wojick
> *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2020 10:30 AM
> *To:* Kathleen Shearer 
> *Cc:* Glenn Hampson ; Rob Johnson <
> rob.john...@research-consulting.com>; Heather Morrison <
> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access
> List (Successor of AmSci) ; <
> radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk> ; The
> Open Scholarship Initiative ; Anis Rahman <
> abu_rah...@sfu.ca>
> *Subject:* Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

[Samuel Moore]

FWIW the article of mine that Glenn mentions about open access as a
boundary object is intended to emphasise that OA is not *necessarily*
politically progressive (following Tkacz and others) but that it can be in
certain circumstances. The argument tries to remind readers that OA means a
lot of different things to different groups and so it requires specific
articulations (closures) for it to reflect a progressive agenda (which is
ultimately what I’m arguing for). The article is absolutely not an argument
in favour of a ‘diversity’ of politics, which feels to me just an excuse
for conservatism, but rather an acceptance that OA is inescapably political
in a variety of ways (for better or worse). So you cannot discuss OA in a
vacuum -- it is always political and will never be founded entirely in
consensus.

This is perhaps why ‘the commons’ is most helpful as a politicisation of
OA. The commons itself refers to the ability of labour to self-organise its
own production, in distinction to both market and state modes. Commons do
not necessarily escape capitalism (and have been encouraged by neoliberal
policymakers such as the World Bank) but they are largely antagonistic
towards it. Focusing on the commons is one way of foregrounding production
over outputs, which is to say that we can argue all day long about
definitions of OA but that ultimately the mode of production is more
important than the mode of access itself. I've long thought that the
commons is a better frame for the futures of publishing as it moves beyond
conversations of access and towards collaborative knowledge production more
generally (of which open access to resources can be important, alongside
issues relating to bibliodiversity, governance, capitalism, etc.).

Best,

Sam

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


On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 7:09 PM Glenn Hampson 
wrote:

> In part David, yes---thank you. But I’m also referring to:
>
>
>
>- Knoth and Pontika’s Open Science Taxonomy (
>https://figshare.com/articles/Open_Science_Taxonomy/1508606/3
>- Fecher and Friesike’s categories of concern regarding open (
>http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2272036)
>- Moore’s boundary object observations (
>http://doi.org/10.4000/rfsic.3220)
>- Willen’s intersecting movements critique (
>
> https://rmwblogg.wordpress.com/2020/02/29/justice-oriented-science-open-science-and-replicable-science-are-overlapping-but-they-are-not-the-same/
>)
>- Bosman & Kramer’s  diversity of definitions assessment (
>
> https://im2punt0.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/defining-open-science-definitions/
>)
>- OSI’s DARTS open spectrum (
>https://journals.gmu.edu/index.php/osi/article/view/1375/1178)
>- Tkacz’s 2012 essay on the connections between the modern open
>science movement and Karl Popper’s open society theories (
>http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/12-4tkacz_0.pdf)
>- And more.
>
>
>
> 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 *David Wojick
> *Sent:* Friday, June 26, 2020 10:30 AM
> *To:* Kathleen Shearer 
> *Cc:* Glenn Hampson ; Rob Johnson <
> rob.john...@research-consulting.com>; Heather Morrison <
> heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access
> List (Successor of AmSci) ; <
> radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk> ; The
> Open Scholarship Initiative ; Anis Rahman <
> abu_rah...@sfu.ca>
> *Subject:* Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models
>
>
>
> Glenn is drawing upon lengthy discussions of the problem of multiple
> definitions that we have had at OSI. Looking back I find that I first wrote
> about this issue seven years ago:
>
>
> https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/11/11/open-access-on-the-sea-of-confusion/
>
>
>
> It might be better to call them concepts or models than definitions, but
> it remains that different people are calling for or allowing very different
> things as being open access. At one extreme we have, for example, the US
> Public Access Program, which is basically read only with a 12 month embargo
> for subscription articles. At another extreme we find born open with no
> restrictions on use. In between there are at least a dozen variations, many
> more if one counts small differences, like the CC BY variants.
>
>
>
> This wide ranging multiplicity of incompatible definitions is a very real
> obstacle to public policy.
>
>
>
> On a more distant topic, profit is a public good if it provides a public
> service. Food, for example.
>
>
>
> David Wojick
>
> Inside Public Access
>
>
> On Jun 26, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Kathleen Shearer <
> 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

[Kathleen Shearer]

Hi all,

I don’t want to waste too much time going in circles, so just a short response:

The resources below are different ways of conceptualizing open, not really 
definitions. They contribute to a deeper understanding of the concept of open, 
which is a good thing.

The knowledge commons is a different issue, and it is what we should be 
addressing at this stage of maturity in the transition to open. This includes 
the principles, governance structures, infrastructures, communities, and more 
that will be needed to create the optimal conditions for scholarship to be 
communicated and used around the world.

If we get bogged down in a discussion of definitions, we will never get 
anywhere (but I suspect that "going nowhere" is in the interest of certain 
parties)

Anyway, bon weekend! (as they say here in Quebec)

Kathleen




> On Jun 26, 2020, at 2:08 PM, Glenn Hampson  
> wrote:
> 
> In part David, yes---thank you. But I’m also referring to:
>  
> Knoth and Pontika’s Open Science Taxonomy 
> (https://figshare.com/articles/Open_Science_Taxonomy/1508606/3 
> 
> Fecher and Friesike’s categories of concern regarding open 
> (http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2272036 )
> Moore’s boundary object observations (http://doi.org/10.4000/rfsic.3220 
> )
> Willen’s intersecting movements critique 
> (https://rmwblogg.wordpress.com/2020/02/29/justice-oriented-science-open-science-and-replicable-science-are-overlapping-but-they-are-not-the-same/
>  
> )
> Bosman & Kramer’s  diversity of definitions assessment 
> (https://im2punt0.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/defining-open-science-definitions/ 
> )
> OSI’s DARTS open spectrum 
> (https://journals.gmu.edu/index.php/osi/article/view/1375/1178 
> )
> Tkacz’s 2012 essay on the connections between the modern open science 
> movement and Karl Popper’s open society theories 
> (http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/12-4tkacz_0.pdf 
> )
> And more. 
>  
> 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 David Wojick
> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 10:30 AM
> To: Kathleen Shearer  >
> Cc: Glenn Hampson  >; Rob Johnson 
>  >; Heather Morrison 
> mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca>>; 
> scholc...@lists.ala.org ; Global Open Access 
> List (Successor of AmSci) mailto:goal@eprints.org>>; 
> mailto:radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk>> 
> mailto:radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk>>; 
> The Open Scholarship Initiative  >; Anis Rahman  >
> Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models
>  
> Glenn is drawing upon lengthy discussions of the problem of multiple 
> definitions that we have had at OSI. Looking back I find that I first wrote 
> about this issue seven years ago:
> https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/11/11/open-access-on-the-sea-of-confusion/
>  
> 
>  
> It might be better to call them concepts or models than definitions, but it 
> remains that different people are calling for or allowing very different 
> things as being open access. At one extreme we have, for example, the US 
> Public Access Program, which is basically read only with a 12 month embargo 
> for subscription articles. At another extreme we find born open with no 
> restrictions on use. In between there are at least a dozen variations, many 
> more if one counts small differences, like the CC BY variants.
>  
> This wide ranging multiplicity of incompatible definitions is a very real 
> obstacle to public policy.
>  
> On a more distant topic, profit is a public good if it provides a public 
> service. Food, for example.
>  
> David Wojick
> Inside Public Access
> 
> On Jun 26, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Kathleen Shearer  > wrote:
> 
> 
> Glenn, all,
>  
> I don’t think there really is a large variation in current definitions of 
> open; but there are some stakeholders who want to slow progress, and use this 
> as an excuse :-(
>  
> The issue of diversity is an important one, although not in the way that it 
> is 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

[Glenn Hampson]

In part David, yes---thank you. But I’m also referring to:

 

*   Knoth and Pontika’s Open Science Taxonomy 
(https://figshare.com/articles/Open_Science_Taxonomy/1508606/3
*   Fecher and Friesike’s categories of concern regarding open 
(http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2272036)
*   Moore’s boundary object observations (http://doi.org/10.4000/rfsic.3220)
*   Willen’s intersecting movements critique 
(https://rmwblogg.wordpress.com/2020/02/29/justice-oriented-science-open-science-and-replicable-science-are-overlapping-but-they-are-not-the-same/)
*   Bosman & Kramer’s  diversity of definitions assessment 
(https://im2punt0.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/defining-open-science-definitions/)
*   OSI’s DARTS open spectrum 
(https://journals.gmu.edu/index.php/osi/article/view/1375/1178)
*   Tkacz’s 2012 essay on the connections between the modern open science 
movement and Karl Popper’s open society theories 
(http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/12-4tkacz_0.pdf)
*   And more. 

 

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 David Wojick
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 10:30 AM
To: Kathleen Shearer 
Cc: Glenn Hampson ; Rob Johnson 
; Heather Morrison 
; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access List 
(Successor of AmSci) ;  
; The Open Scholarship Initiative 
; Anis Rahman 
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

 

Glenn is drawing upon lengthy discussions of the problem of multiple 
definitions that we have had at OSI. Looking back I find that I first wrote 
about this issue seven years ago:

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/11/11/open-access-on-the-sea-of-confusion/

 

It might be better to call them concepts or models than definitions, but it 
remains that different people are calling for or allowing very different things 
as being open access. At one extreme we have, for example, the US Public Access 
Program, which is basically read only with a 12 month embargo for subscription 
articles. At another extreme we find born open with no restrictions on use. In 
between there are at least a dozen variations, many more if one counts small 
differences, like the CC BY variants.

 

This wide ranging multiplicity of incompatible definitions is a very real 
obstacle to public policy.

 

On a more distant topic, profit is a public good if it provides a public 
service. Food, for example.

 

David Wojick

Inside Public Access


On Jun 26, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Kathleen Shearer mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> > wrote:



Glenn, all,

 

I don’t think there really is a large variation in current definitions of open; 
but there are some stakeholders who want to slow progress, and use this as an 
excuse :-(

 

The issue of diversity is an important one, although not in the way that it is 
expressed by Glenn, (which is diversity in stakeholders goals - profit vs 
public good), but diversity of needs, capacities, priorities, languages, 
formats in different fields and countries. And these diverse requirements 
cannot be supported effectively by any one large centralized infrastructure, 
which will tend to cater to the most well resourced users (or the majority).

 

While there are some international infrastructures that are appropriate, the 
“global commons” should also be composed of many localized infrastructures and 
services that are governed by, and can respond to, the needs of those local 
communities; and then we must figure out how these infrastructures can be 
interoperable through adoption of common standards that will allow us to share 
and communicate at the global level.

 

This requires finding a delicate balance, a balance that possibly the UNESCO 
discussions can help to progress.

 

As a UNESCO Open Science Partner, COAR brings this perspective to the table (as 
I’m sure some others will too).

 

All the best, Kathleen

 

 

Kathleen Shearer

Executive Director

Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)

www.coar-repositories.org  

 

 





On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:47 AM, Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > wrote:

 

Hi Heather, Anis, Rob,

 

It’s also important to note the emerging UNESCO model, which will be presented 
to the UN General Assembly for consideration in late 2021. I suspect (and hope) 
this model will be more “polycentric” and “adaptive” than any of the current 
plans.

 

As you know, many organizations have had an opportunity to submit comments on 
UNESCO’s plan; indeed, global consultations are still ongoing. OSI’s 
recommendations are listed here: https://bit.ly/2CL4Nm7. The executive summary 
is this: “Open” is a very diverse space. Not only do our definitions of open 
differ greatly, so too do our perceptions of the etymology of open (whether we 
use BOAI as the starting point or 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

[Glenn Hampson]

I’ll conclude and sign off as well. My reply to this approach, again with all 
due respect, is that the *only* way to arrive at the proper “principles, 
governance structures, infrastructures, communities, and more that will be 
needed to create the optimal conditions for scholarship to be communicated and 
used around the world,” is to first understand this space better. We can’t just 
declare that we’re done listening and plow ahead with “solutions” without 
regard for impact or consequences. Of course, if we’re of the mindset that this 
search for common ground is just a waste of time or some subterfuge bent on 
delaying open, then we’re not likely to embrace this approach. But if we can 
get past this trust issue (which is a big *if*), then it’s clear that the 
benefits of working together and the future we can create by working together 
are vastly superior to the kind of open future we arrive at by working alone.

 

Best regards---good weekend as well (or as we say here in Seattle, please don’t 
rain again),

 

Glenn

 

 

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



 

 

 

From: Kathleen Shearer  
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 11:35 AM
To: Glenn Hampson 
Cc: David Wojick ; Rob Johnson 
; Heather Morrison 
; scholcomm ; Global Open 
Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; 
radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk; The Open Scholarship Initiative 
; Anis Rahman 
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

 

Hi all,

 

I don’t want to waste too much time going in circles, so just a short response:

 

The resources below are different ways of conceptualizing open, not really 
definitions. They contribute to a deeper understanding of the concept of open, 
which is a good thing.

 

The knowledge commons is a different issue, and it is what we should be 
addressing at this stage of maturity in the transition to open. This includes 
the principles, governance structures, infrastructures, communities, and more 
that will be needed to create the optimal conditions for scholarship to be 
communicated and used around the world.

 

If we get bogged down in a discussion of definitions, we will never get 
anywhere (but I suspect that "going nowhere" is in the interest of certain 
parties)

 

Anyway, bon weekend! (as they say here in Quebec)

 

Kathleen

 

 

 





On Jun 26, 2020, at 2:08 PM, Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > wrote:

 

In part David, yes---thank you. But I’m also referring to:

 

*   Knoth and Pontika’s Open Science Taxonomy 
(https://figshare.com/articles/Open_Science_Taxonomy/1508606/3
*   Fecher and Friesike’s categories of concern regarding open 
(http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2272036)
*   Moore’s boundary object observations (http://doi.org/10.4000/rfsic.3220)
*   Willen’s intersecting movements critique 
(https://rmwblogg.wordpress.com/2020/02/29/justice-oriented-science-open-science-and-replicable-science-are-overlapping-but-they-are-not-the-same/)
*   Bosman & Kramer’s  diversity of definitions assessment 
(https://im2punt0.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/defining-open-science-definitions/)
*   OSI’s DARTS open spectrum 
(https://journals.gmu.edu/index.php/osi/article/view/1375/1178)
*   Tkacz’s 2012 essay on the connections between the modern open science 
movement and Karl Popper’s open society theories 
(http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/12-4tkacz_0.pdf)
*   And more. 

 

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 David Wojick
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 10:30 AM
To: Kathleen Shearer mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> >
Cc: Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> >; Rob Johnson 
mailto:rob.john...@research-consulting.com> >; Heather Morrison 
mailto:heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> >; 
scholc...@lists.ala.org  ; Global Open Access 
List (Successor of AmSci) mailto:goal@eprints.org> >; 
mailto:radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk> > 
mailto:radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk> >; 
The Open Scholarship Initiative mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com> >; Anis Rahman mailto:abu_rah...@sfu.ca> >
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

 

Glenn is drawing upon lengthy discussions of the problem of multiple 
definitions that we have had at OSI. Looking back I find that I first wrote 
about this issue seven years ago:

https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/11/11/open-access-on-the-sea-of-confusion/

 

It might be better to call them concepts or models than definitions, but it 
remains that different people are calling for or allowing very different things 
as being open access. At one extreme we have, for 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi Kathleen,

 

I agree with your conclusion---that “these diverse requirements cannot be 
supported effectively by any one large centralized infrastructure.” But as you 
know, I do respectfully disagree with continuing to characterize (as has been 
all too common in this community for too long) the quest for open as some 
contest between good and evil---between those who want open and those who want 
to slow progress, or between those who are working for the public good and 
those who only seek profit. There are a great many perspectives in this 
conversation that all deserve to be heard---people who approach open as a 
social justice issue; who say open but mean “replicability”; who see open as 
existing along a broad spectrum of outcomes; who see open as a vast collection 
of practice-based elements like open data, open repositories, open peer review, 
altmetrics; and so on. I’m certain that my three-sentence summary didn’t do 
justice to this diversity, in which case I encourage everyone to read our full 
report.

 

The important theme here is that there is truly a lot of common ground in this 
conversation, and that creating a global commons is something we can all do 
together. Indeed, it is a goal that can only be achieved by working together.

 

With best regards,

 

Glenn

 

 

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



 

 

From: Kathleen Shearer  
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 9:56 AM
To: Glenn Hampson 
Cc: Rob Johnson ; Heather Morrison 
; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access List 
(Successor of AmSci) ;  
; The Open Scholarship Initiative 
; Anis Rahman 
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

 

Glenn, all,

 

I don’t think there really is a large variation in current definitions of open; 
but there are some stakeholders who want to slow progress, and use this as an 
excuse :-(

 

The issue of diversity is an important one, although not in the way that it is 
expressed by Glenn, (which is diversity in stakeholders goals - profit vs 
public good), but diversity of needs, capacities, priorities, languages, 
formats in different fields and countries. And these diverse requirements 
cannot be supported effectively by any one large centralized infrastructure, 
which will tend to cater to the most well resourced users (or the majority).

 

While there are some international infrastructures that are appropriate, the 
“global commons” should also be composed of many localized infrastructures and 
services that are governed by, and can respond to, the needs of those local 
communities; and then we must figure out how these infrastructures can be 
interoperable through adoption of common standards that will allow us to share 
and communicate at the global level.

 

This requires finding a delicate balance, a balance that possibly the UNESCO 
discussions can help to progress.

 

As a UNESCO Open Science Partner, COAR brings this perspective to the table (as 
I’m sure some others will too).

 

All the best, Kathleen

 

 

Kathleen Shearer

Executive Director

Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)

www.coar-repositories.org  

 

 





On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:47 AM, Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > wrote:

 

Hi Heather, Anis, Rob,

 

It’s also important to note the emerging UNESCO model, which will be presented 
to the UN General Assembly for consideration in late 2021. I suspect (and hope) 
this model will be more “polycentric” and “adaptive” than any of the current 
plans.

 

As you know, many organizations have had an opportunity to submit comments on 
UNESCO’s plan; indeed, global consultations are still ongoing. OSI’s 
recommendations are listed here: https://bit.ly/2CL4Nm7. The executive summary 
is this: “Open” is a very diverse space. Not only do our definitions of open 
differ greatly, so too do our perceptions of the etymology of open (whether we 
use BOAI as the starting point or just one point among many). Also, critically, 
our open goals and motives differ greatly in this community; open progress and 
approaches vary by field of study; and different approaches have different 
focus points, principles, incentives, and financial considerations. In short, 
our challenge of creating a more open future for research defies one-size-fits 
all description, and it certainly defies one-size fits-all solution. 

 

Recognizing and respecting this diversity, OSI’s recommendations, which are 
based on five years of global consultations in collaboration with UNESCO, are 
that a just and workable global plan for the future of open must do the 
following:

 

*   DISCOVER critical missing pieces of the open scholarship puzzle so we 
can design our open reforms more effectively;
*   DESIGN, build and deploy an array of much needed open infrastructure 
tools to help accelerate the spread and adoption of 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

[David Wojick]

Glenn is drawing upon lengthy discussions of the problem of multiple 
definitions that we have had at OSI. Looking back I find that I first wrote 
about this issue seven years ago:
https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/11/11/open-access-on-the-sea-of-confusion/

It might be better to call them concepts or models than definitions, but it 
remains that different people are calling for or allowing very different things 
as being open access. At one extreme we have, for example, the US Public Access 
Program, which is basically read only with a 12 month embargo for subscription 
articles. At another extreme we find born open with no restrictions on use. In 
between there are at least a dozen variations, many more if one counts small 
differences, like the CC BY variants.

This wide ranging multiplicity of incompatible definitions is a very real 
obstacle to public policy.

On a more distant topic, profit is a public good if it provides a public 
service. Food, for example.

David Wojick
Inside Public Access

On Jun 26, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Kathleen Shearer  
wrote:


Glenn, all,

I don’t think there really is a large variation in current definitions of open; 
but there are some stakeholders who want to slow progress, and use this as an 
excuse :-(

The issue of diversity is an important one, although not in the way that it is 
expressed by Glenn, (which is diversity in stakeholders goals - profit vs 
public good), but diversity of needs, capacities, priorities, languages, 
formats in different fields and countries. And these diverse requirements 
cannot be supported effectively by any one large centralized infrastructure, 
which will tend to cater to the most well resourced users (or the majority).

While there are some international infrastructures that are appropriate, the 
“global commons” should also be composed of many localized infrastructures and 
services that are governed by, and can respond to, the needs of those local 
communities; and then we must figure out how these infrastructures can be 
interoperable through adoption of common standards that will allow us to share 
and communicate at the global level.

This requires finding a delicate balance, a balance that possibly the UNESCO 
discussions can help to progress.

As a UNESCO Open Science Partner, COAR brings this perspective to the table (as 
I’m sure some others will too).

All the best, Kathleen


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



> On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:47 AM, Glenn Hampson  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Heather, Anis, Rob,
>  
> It’s also important to note the emerging UNESCO model, which will be 
> presented to the UN General Assembly for consideration in late 2021. I 
> suspect (and hope) this model will be more “polycentric” and “adaptive” than 
> any of the current plans.
>  
> As you know, many organizations have had an opportunity to submit comments on 
> UNESCO’s plan; indeed, global consultations are still ongoing. OSI’s 
> recommendations are listed here: https://bit.ly/2CL4Nm7. The executive 
> summary is this: “Open” is a very diverse space. Not only do our definitions 
> of open differ greatly, so too do our perceptions of the etymology of open 
> (whether we use BOAI as the starting point or just one point among many). 
> Also, critically, our open goals and motives differ greatly in this 
> community; open progress and approaches vary by field of study; and different 
> approaches have different focus points, principles, incentives, and financial 
> considerations. In short, our challenge of creating a more open future for 
> research defies one-size-fits all description, and it certainly defies 
> one-size fits-all solution. 
>  
> Recognizing and respecting this diversity, OSI’s recommendations, which are 
> based on five years of global consultations in collaboration with UNESCO, are 
> that a just and workable global plan for the future of open must do the 
> following:
>  
> DISCOVER critical missing pieces of the open scholarship puzzle so we can 
> design our open reforms more effectively;
> DESIGN, build and deploy an array of much needed open infrastructure tools to 
> help accelerate the spread and adoption of open scholarship practices;
> WORK TOGETHER on finding common ground perspective solutions that address key 
> issues and concerns (see OSI’s Common Ground policy paper for more detail); 
> and
> REDOUBLE OUR COLLECTIVE EFFORTS to educate and listen to the research 
> community about open solutions, and in doing so design solutions that better 
> meet the needs of research.
>  
> In pursuing these actions, the international community should:
>  
> Work and contribute together (everyone, including publishers); 
> Work on all pieces of the puzzle so we can clear a path for open to succeed; 
> Discover missing pieces of information to ensure our efforts are 
> evidence-based; 
> Embrace diversity. No one group has a perfect understanding of 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

[Kathleen Shearer]

Glenn, all,

I don’t think there really is a large variation in current definitions of open; 
but there are some stakeholders who want to slow progress, and use this as an 
excuse :-(

The issue of diversity is an important one, although not in the way that it is 
expressed by Glenn, (which is diversity in stakeholders goals - profit vs 
public good), but diversity of needs, capacities, priorities, languages, 
formats in different fields and countries. And these diverse requirements 
cannot be supported effectively by any one large centralized infrastructure, 
which will tend to cater to the most well resourced users (or the majority).

While there are some international infrastructures that are appropriate, the 
“global commons” should also be composed of many localized infrastructures and 
services that are governed by, and can respond to, the needs of those local 
communities; and then we must figure out how these infrastructures can be 
interoperable through adoption of common standards that will allow us to share 
and communicate at the global level.

This requires finding a delicate balance, a balance that possibly the UNESCO 
discussions can help to progress.

As a UNESCO Open Science Partner, COAR brings this perspective to the table (as 
I’m sure some others will too).

All the best, Kathleen


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



> On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:47 AM, Glenn Hampson  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Heather, Anis, Rob,
>  
> It’s also important to note the emerging UNESCO model, which will be 
> presented to the UN General Assembly for consideration in late 2021. I 
> suspect (and hope) this model will be more “polycentric” and “adaptive” than 
> any of the current plans.
>  
> As you know, many organizations have had an opportunity to submit comments on 
> UNESCO’s plan; indeed, global consultations are still ongoing. OSI’s 
> recommendations are listed here: https://bit.ly/2CL4Nm7 
> . The executive summary is this: “Open” is a very 
> diverse space. Not only do our definitions of open differ greatly, so too do 
> our perceptions of the etymology of open (whether we use BOAI as the starting 
> point or just one point among many). Also, critically, our open goals and 
> motives differ greatly in this community; open progress and approaches vary 
> by field of study; and different approaches have different focus points, 
> principles, incentives, and financial considerations. In short, our challenge 
> of creating a more open future for research defies one-size-fits all 
> description, and it certainly defies one-size fits-all solution. 
>  
> Recognizing and respecting this diversity, OSI’s recommendations, which are 
> based on five years of global consultations in collaboration with UNESCO, are 
> that a just and workable global plan for the future of open must do the 
> following:
>  
> DISCOVER critical missing pieces of the open scholarship puzzle so we can 
> design our open reforms more effectively;
> DESIGN, build and deploy an array of much needed open infrastructure tools to 
> help accelerate the spread and adoption of open scholarship practices;
> WORK TOGETHER on finding common ground perspective solutions that address key 
> issues and concerns (see OSI’s Common Ground policy paper for more detail); 
> and
> REDOUBLE OUR COLLECTIVE EFFORTS to educate and listen to the research 
> community about open solutions, and in doing so design solutions that better 
> meet the needs of research.
>  
> In pursuing these actions, the international community should:
>  
> Work and contribute together (everyone, including publishers); 
> Work on all pieces of the puzzle so we can clear a path for open to succeed; 
> Discover missing pieces of information to ensure our efforts are 
> evidence-based; 
> Embrace diversity. No one group has a perfect understanding of the needs and 
> challenges in this space, and different groups have different needs and 
> challenges. 
> Develop big picture agreement on the goals ahead and common ground approaches 
> to meet these goals; and
> Help build UNESCO’s global open roadmap.
>  
> 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 Rob Johnson
> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:42 PM
> To: Heather Morrison  >; scholc...@lists.ala.org 
> ; Global Open Access List (Successor of 
> AmSci) mailto:goal@eprints.org>>; 
> radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk 
> Cc: Anis Rahman mailto:abu_rah...@sfu.ca>>
> Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models
>  
> Dear Heather (and 

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi Heather, Anis, Rob,

 

It’s also important to note the emerging UNESCO model, which will be
presented to the UN General Assembly for consideration in late 2021. I
suspect (and hope) this model will be more “polycentric” and “adaptive” than
any of the current plans.

 

As you know, many organizations have had an opportunity to submit comments
on UNESCO’s plan; indeed, global consultations are still ongoing. OSI’s
recommendations are listed here: https://bit.ly/2CL4Nm7. The executive
summary is this: “Open” is a very diverse space. Not only do our definitions
of open differ greatly, so too do our perceptions of the etymology of open
(whether we use BOAI as the starting point or just one point among many).
Also, critically, our open goals and motives differ greatly in this
community; open progress and approaches vary by field of study; and
different approaches have different focus points, principles, incentives,
and financial considerations. In short, our challenge of creating a more
open future for research defies one-size-fits all description, and it
certainly defies one-size fits-all solution. 

 

Recognizing and respecting this diversity, OSI’s recommendations, which are
based on five years of global consultations in collaboration with UNESCO,
are that a just and workable global plan for the future of open must do the
following:

 

*   DISCOVER critical missing pieces of the open scholarship puzzle so
we can design our open reforms more effectively;
*   DESIGN, build and deploy an array of much needed open infrastructure
tools to help accelerate the spread and adoption of open scholarship
practices;
*   WORK TOGETHER on finding common ground perspective solutions that
address key issues and concerns (see OSI’s Common Ground policy paper for
more detail); and
*   REDOUBLE OUR COLLECTIVE EFFORTS to educate and listen to the
research community about open solutions, and in doing so design solutions
that better meet the needs of research.

 

In pursuing these actions, the international community should:

 

*   Work and contribute together (everyone, including publishers); 
*   Work on all pieces of the puzzle so we can clear a path for open to
succeed; 
*   Discover missing pieces of information to ensure our efforts are
evidence-based; 
*   Embrace diversity. No one group has a perfect understanding of the
needs and challenges in this space, and different groups have different
needs and challenges. 
*   Develop big picture agreement on the goals ahead and common ground
approaches to meet these goals; and
*   Help build UNESCO’s global open roadmap.

 

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 Rob Johnson
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:42 PM
To: Heather Morrison ; scholc...@lists.ala.org;
Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ;
radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk
Cc: Anis Rahman 
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

 

Dear Heather (and Anis),

Thanks for sharing this. I’ve also found Ostrom’s work on the commons
helpful in assessing some of the emerging issues in this area, and you might
be interested to read an article I wrote on Plan S and the commons, which
also references Ostrom’s principles. I reached very similar conclusions to
you, arguing that there would be a need for ‘polycentricity’ and ‘adaptative
governance’ for the Plan to succeed – echoing your observations on the value
of collective choice, adaptation to local conditions and ‘nested
enterprises’.

 

Johnson, Rob. 2019. “From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of
Scholarly Communication”. Insights 32 (1): 5. DOI:
 http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.453

 

Best wishes,

 

Rob

 

Rob Johnson

Director

 

 

 

Follow us on Twitter
 @rschconsulting

T: +44(0)115 896 7567

M: +44(0)779 511 7737

E:  
rob.john...@research-consulting.com

W:   www.research-consulting.com

 

Registered office: The Ingenuity Centre, University of Nottingham Innovation
Park, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, United Kingdom

Research Consulting Limited is a Company Registered in England and Wales,
Reg No. 8376797   



---

This communication and the information contained in it are confidential and
may be legally privileged. The content is intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others 

Re: [GOAL] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

[Rob Johnson]

Dear Heather (and Anis),
Thanks for sharing this. I've also found Ostrom's work on the commons helpful 
in assessing some of the emerging issues in this area, and you might be 
interested to read an article I wrote on Plan S and the commons, which also 
references Ostrom's principles. I reached very similar conclusions to you, 
arguing that there would be a need for 'polycentricity' and 'adaptative 
governance' for the Plan to succeed - echoing your observations on the value of 
collective choice, adaptation to local conditions and 'nested enterprises'.

Johnson, Rob. 2019. "From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of 
Scholarly Communication". Insights 32 (1): 5. DOI: 
http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.453

Best wishes,

Rob

Rob Johnson
Director

 [cid:image001.png@01D64B8C.AF2BDB80]

Follow us on Twitter 
@rschconsulting
T: +44(0)115 896 7567
M: +44(0)779 511 7737
E: 
rob.john...@research-consulting.com
W: www.research-consulting.com

Registered office: The Ingenuity Centre, University of Nottingham Innovation 
Park, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, United Kingdom
Research Consulting Limited is a Company Registered in England and Wales, Reg 
No. 8376797
---
This communication and the information contained in it are confidential and may 
be legally privileged. The content is intended solely for the use of the 
individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive 
it. If you are not the intended recipient, it is hereby brought to your notice 
that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or dissemination, or alternatively 
the taking of any action in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may 
constitute grounds for action, either civil or criminal.




From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  On 
Behalf Of Heather Morrison
Sent: 26 June 2020 01:16
To: scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 
; radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk
Cc: Anis Rahman 
Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models


Abstract:

The context of this paper is an analysis of three emerging models for 
developing a global knowledge commons. The concept of a 'global knowledge 
commons' builds on the vision of the original Budapest Open Access Initiative 
(2002) for the potential of combining academic tradition and the internet to 
remove various access barriers to the scholarly literature, thus laying the 
foundation for an unprecedented public good, uniting humanity in a common quest 
for knowledge. The global knowledge commons is a universal sharing of the 
knowledge of humankind, free for all to access (recognizing reasons for 
limiting sharing in some circumstances such as to protect individual privacy), 
and free for everyone qualified to contribute to. The three models are Plan S / 
cOAlition S, an EU-led initiative to transition all of scholarly publishing to 
an open access model on a short timeline; the Global Sustainability Coalition 
for Open Science Services (SCOSS), a recent initiative that builds on Ostrom's 
study of the commons; and PubMedCentral (PMC) International, building on the 
preservation and access to the medical research literature provided by the U.S. 
National Institutes of Health to support other national repositories of funded 
research and exchange of materials between regions. The research will involve 
analysis of official policy and background briefing documents on the three 
initiatives and relevant historical projects, such as the Research Council 
U.K.'s block grants for article processing charges, the EU-led OA2020 
initiative, Europe PMC and the short-lived PMC-Canada. Theoretical analysis 
will draw on Ostrom's work on the commons, theories of development, 
under-development, epistemic / knowledge inequity and the concepts of Chan and 
colleagues (2011) on the importance of moving beyond north-to-south access to 
knowledge (charity model) to include south-to-south and south-to-north (equity 
model). This model analysis contributes to build a comparative view of 
transcontinental efforts for a global knowledge commons building with shared 
values of open access, sharing and collaboration, in contrast to the growing 
trend of commodification of scholarly knowledge evident in both traditional 
subscriptions / purchase-based scholarly publishing and in commercial open 
access publishing. We anticipate that our findings will indicate that a digital 
world of inclusiveness and reciprocity is possible, but cannot be taken for 
granted, and policy support is crucial. Global communication and 

[GOAL] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models

[Heather Morrison]

Abstract:

The context of this paper is an analysis of three emerging models for 
developing a global knowledge commons. The concept of a ‘global knowledge 
commons’ builds on the vision of the original Budapest Open Access Initiative 
(2002) for the potential of combining academic tradition and the internet to 
remove various access barriers to the scholarly literature, thus laying the 
foundation for an unprecedented public good, uniting humanity in a common quest 
for knowledge. The global knowledge commons is a universal sharing of the 
knowledge of humankind, free for all to access (recognizing reasons for 
limiting sharing in some circumstances such as to protect individual privacy), 
and free for everyone qualified to contribute to. The three models are Plan S / 
cOAlition S, an EU-led initiative to transition all of scholarly publishing to 
an open access model on a short timeline; the Global Sustainability Coalition 
for Open Science Services (SCOSS), a recent initiative that builds on Ostrom’s 
study of the commons; and PubMedCentral (PMC) International, building on the 
preservation and access to the medical research literature provided by the U.S. 
National Institutes of Health to support other national repositories of funded 
research and exchange of materials between regions. The research will involve 
analysis of official policy and background briefing documents on the three 
initiatives and relevant historical projects, such as the Research Council 
U.K.’s block grants for article processing charges, the EU-led OA2020 
initiative, Europe PMC and the short-lived PMC-Canada. Theoretical analysis 
will draw on Ostrom’s work on the commons, theories of development, 
under-development, epistemic / knowledge inequity and the concepts of Chan and 
colleagues (2011) on the importance of moving beyond north-to-south access to 
knowledge (charity model) to include south-to-south and south-to-north (equity 
model). This model analysis contributes to build a comparative view of 
transcontinental efforts for a global knowledge commons building with shared 
values of open access, sharing and collaboration, in contrast to the growing 
trend of commodification of scholarly knowledge evident in both traditional 
subscriptions / purchase-based scholarly publishing and in commercial open 
access publishing. We anticipate that our findings will indicate that a digital 
world of inclusiveness and reciprocity is possible, but cannot be taken for 
granted, and policy support is crucial. Global communication and information 
policy have much to contribute towards the development of a sustainable global 
knowledge commons.

Full text: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/40664

Cite as: Morrison, H. & Rahman, R. (2020). Knowledge and equity: analysis of 
three models. International Association of Communication and Media Researchers 
(IAMCR) annual conference, July 2020.

Comments are welcome, either on list or on the blog:
https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2020/06/26/knowledge-and-equity-analysis-of-three-models/

best,


Dr. Heather Morrison

Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa

Cross-appointed, Department of Communication

Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa

Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight 
Project

sustainingknowledgecommons.org

heather.morri...@uottawa.ca

https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706

[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal