Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models
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 <http://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
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models
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> 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 <mailto: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
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models
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 <http://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
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models
Hi Heather, Anis, Rob, Its 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 UNESCOs plan; indeed, global consultations are still ongoing. OSIs 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, OSIs 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 OSIs 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 UNESCOs 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. Ive also found Ostroms 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 Ostroms 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> http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.453 Best wishes, Rob Rob Johnson Director Follow us on Twitter <https://twitter.com/intent/follow?original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.co m%2Fabout%2Fresources%2Fbuttons=follow_link_name=rschconsultin g_p=followbutton=2.0> @rschconsulting T: +44(0)115 896 7567 M: +44(0)779 511 7737 E: <mailto:rob.john...@research-consulting.com> rob.john...@research-consulting.com W: <http://www.research-consulting.com/> 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
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
Hi Everyone, I’m pleased to announce that the summary (and eminently more readable) version of OSI’s Common Ground paper is now available on the Emerald Open platform at https://emeraldopenresearch.com/documents/2-18. We welcome your feedback (emailing me directly is fine). If you have a lot of time on your hands and prefer the full-length version, it’s on the Mason Publishing Group website at https://journals.gmu.edu/index.php/osi/article/view/2725 and also on the Plan A website. Also, I’m pleased to report that the OSI participants page has been updated to address the recent concerns that were expressed. Thank you for your help us improve our transparency and accountability---this was a valuable exercise. With 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 David Wojick Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 12:58 PM To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray Cc: Glenn Hampson ; Peter Murray-Rust ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com; The Open Scholarship Initiative ; scholcomm Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action A lot of industry research is directly related to products and services so the results are proprietary. As an example, after I discovered the issue tree I was getting sole source federal contracts to do them, because only I knew how. So I never published anything on them. Google does more R than NSF or DOE, somewhere around ten billion a year, but I doubt much is published. Might be fun to see how much. David On Apr 21, 2020, at 1:47 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu> > wrote: One would expect that industry researchers are doing applied science almost exclusively while academic researchers include many who do theoretical science. I can't imagine that any industry researchers are investigating string theory or parallel universes! _ From: Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:40 AM To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu> >; 'Peter Murray-Rust' mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk> >; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' mailto:goal@eprints.org> >; samuel.moor...@gmail.com <mailto:samuel.moor...@gmail.com> mailto:samuel.moor...@gmail.com> > Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com> >; 'scholcomm' mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> > Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action Interesting idea Sandy. With regard to STM, I don’t have the exact numbers off-hand (I’ll look for them) but the general idea is that most STM research is conducted outside of academia, while most STM publishing happens in academia. I’m not sure what this means (maybe someone else here does)---that the type of research is different, or the communication approach is different (with more reliance on white papers in industry), neither, or both. Best, Glenn Glenn Hampson Executive Director <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsci.institute%2F=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Ce8084c16011f41dbd4ec08d7e612c014%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637230840524605914=hTW%2FOc%2FfS1HB5wlga89%2F25BWTDG0n11NRraQjkVAQNU%3D=0> Science Communication Institute (SCI) Program Director <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fosiglobal.org%2F=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Ce8084c16011f41dbd4ec08d7e612c014%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637230840524615910=VXUHPvlz3GMmMRlavEB%2F%2B6C%2Frw3GnW1lyleJK9ej6Sk%3D=0> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fosiglobal.org%2F=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Ce8084c16011f41dbd4ec08d7e612c014%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637230840524615910=VXUHPvlz3GMmMRlavEB%2F%2B6C%2Frw3GnW1lyleJK9ej6Sk%3D=0> From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> > On Behalf Of Thatcher, Sanford Gray Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:05 AM To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk> >; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' mailto:goal@eprints.org> >; samuel.moor...@gmail.com <mailto:samuel.moor...@gmail.com> ; Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com> >; 'scholcomm' mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> > Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action I have a simple question (whose answer may, however, be complicated) perhaps relevant to defini
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
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 Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:15 AM To: Glenn Hampson Cc: Peter Murray-Rust ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; Samuel Moore ; The Open Scholarship Initiative ; scholcomm 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 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 mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk> > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:23 AM To: Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) mailto:goal@eprints.org> >; Samuel Moore mailto:samuel.moor...@gmail.com> >; The Open Scholarship Initiative mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com> >; scholcomm 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 dir
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
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 Science Communication Institute (SCI) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) From: Peter Murray-Rust Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:23 AM To: Glenn Hampson Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; Samuel Moore ; The Open Scholarship Initiative ; scholcomm 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 ci
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
Hi Kathleen, It’s definitely a challenge to try to relay the lessons of experience from OSI while at the same time trying to make clear that there are a wide variety of opinions inside this group. I’ve deliberately tried to avoid making statements like “OSI believes” in our reports. I apologize if/when these slip through my emails and less formal communications. I’ll go ahead and remove your name from the OSI website right now---a few others have requested this over the years as well (as noted on the site). Thanks for the notice. Best regards, Glenn Glenn Hampson Executive Director Science Communication Institute (SCI) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) From: osi2016...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Kathleen Shearer Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:13 AM To: Glenn Hampson Cc: Peter Murray-Rust ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com; The Open Scholarship Initiative ; scholcomm Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action Glen, You are woefully misrepresenting the OSI “community” to the world. As someone that was invited and attended one OSI meeting (and then was added to the mailing list), that does not imply that I am part of the OSI community. Nor does in mean that I participated in the development of this document. It is disingenuous to state that all of the people who once attended one of the OSI meetings are supportive of what you are doing. I actually disagree with your plan and take great exception to your use of my name and organization on the website. I’m sure that I am not the only one. When you talk about your community, you should be referring to only the people who have signed on to the plan. I see there are only a few individuals and organizations that have endorsed it so far. Best, Kathleen Kathleen Shearer Executive Director Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) www.coar-repositories.org <http://www.coar-repositories.org> On Apr 21, 2020, at 11:14 AM, Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > wrote: Hi Sam, Peter, Thanks so much for your emails. I’m sorry for the delay in responding---we’re a half a world apart and I’m just getting my morning coffee You ask a number of important questions. I’ll try to respond concisely, and then just please let me know (directly or on-list) if you need more information: 1. High level: OSI’s purpose was (and remains) to bring together leaders in the scholarly communication space to share perspectives. A good number of the OSI participants (plus alumni and observers) have been executive directors of nonprofits, vice-presidents of universities, vice-presidents of publishing companies, library deans, directors of research institutes, journal editors, and so on. Also represented are leaders in the open space, and leaders of “born open” journals and efforts who are household names in this space. You can see a rather outdated (sorry) list of OSI partcipants, alumni and observers at http://osiglobal.org/osi-participants/; a graphic is also pasted here (which may or may not survive the emailing). About 18 different stakeholder groups are represented in all---covering 250+ institutions and 28 countries---on a quota system that gives the most weight to university representation. The intent here was not at all to bypass grassroots activism. Quite to the contrary, the intent was to cut to the chase---to bring together the leaders in this space who could speak most knowledgably about the issues and challenges at hand, and work together directly (instead of through intermediaries) to find common ground. We are always adding people to the group. If you’re interested in participating, please just say the word. 2. Going forward: OSI’s work has been rich and fascinating. But OSI may not end up being in charge of Plan A---tbd. This plan represents the best thinking and recommendations of OSI, but whether these recommendations go anywhere is going to depend on Plan A signatories. You’re right---no plan, however well-intended, can be foisted on the rest of the world unless it is truly inclusive. That’s been a primary concern of everyone in OSI since day 1---that even though this is a remarkably diverse group, it simply isn’t set up to be a policy making body and inclusive as it is, still doesn’t include enough representation from researchers and from all parts of the globe. It’s a wonderful deliberative body, but we can’t decide anything amongst ourselves, which is alternately enlightening and frustrating. It’s going to take a different deliberative mechanism to create common ground policy (which is why we’re also supporting UNESCO with their roadmap effort---they have the tools and minister-level involvement to make policy). Our hope is that Plan A signatori
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
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) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 1:49 PM To: Glenn Hampson Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; Kathleen Shearer ; ; ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; The Open Scholarship Initiative 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 mailto: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) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) From: David Wojick mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 12:05 PM To: Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu> >; Kathleen Shearer mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> >; mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> > mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> >; mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> > mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> >; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) mailto: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,
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
I beg to differ, David. Take a look at the paper’s references section for a list of suggested reading on this approach. Also take a look at agreements like the Columbia River Treaty <https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/columbia-river-history/columbiarivertreaty> , which aren’t based on “divide the pie” compromises, but on building a relationship between many stakeholders (nations, states, fisheries, farmers, power suppliers, etc.) and finding a way to work together on common interests. From: David Wojick Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 1:36 PM To: Hinchliffe, Lisa W Cc: Glenn Hampson ; Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; Kathleen Shearer ; ; ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action My point is there may well be no such actions. Policy is normally a realm of compromise, where no one gets what they want, not a matter of finding common ground. Seeking common ground strikes me as an odd model for conflict resolution. David On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:43 PM, Hinchliffe, Lisa W mailto:ljani...@illinois.edu> > wrote: Well, David, yes - that's exactly what Plan A calls for ... engaging in inquiry to find those actions. -- Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, Illinois 61801 ljani...@illinois.edu <mailto:ljani...@illinois.edu> , 217-333-1323 (v), 217-244-4358 (f) _ From: David Wojick mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:41 PM To: Hinchliffe, Lisa W mailto:ljani...@illinois.edu> > Cc: Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> >; Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu> >; Kathleen Shearer mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> >; mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> > mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> >; mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> > mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> >; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) mailto:goal@eprints.org> > Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action Yes, of course, but presumably we are looking for actionable common ground, not just shared beliefs. David On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Hinchliffe, Lisa W mailto:ljani...@illinois.edu> > wrote: Common ground between those two appears to me to be the belief that there should be scholarly journals. (Which, of course, is not a view that everyone holds. But ... even then, I think there is common ground that "scholarly communication is a worthwhile activity" ). -- Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, Illinois 61801 <mailto:ljani...@illinois.edu> ljani...@illinois.edu, 217-333-1323 (v), 217-244-4358 (f) _ From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> > on behalf of David Wojick mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:04 PM To: Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu> >; Kathleen Shearer mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> >; mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> > mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> >; mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> > mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> >; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) mailto: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 mailto: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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__plan-2Da.world_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2020_04_OSI-2Dpolicy-2Dperspective-2D2-2Dfinal.pdf=DwMFaQ=OCIEmEwdEq_aNlsP4fF3gFqSN-E3mlr2t9JcDdfOZag=EE5vJ-IOLjGK--oAkNW9DMFEo5gGTLnGLRqx-7NCwVg=Moby8cPeQobkgyhl9svyz1qmMoQYRNBRmlMk2To-8u8=T-1YPzr2OLEnEuPHlY2WIxa04OCCEaGxzuvNAdec3nM=> . I apologize for the length of this---the summary version hasn’t been published yet. Best, Glenn Glenn Hampson Executive Director Science
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
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) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) From: David Wojick Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 12:05 PM To: Glenn Hampson Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; Kathleen Shearer ; ; ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) 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 mailto: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) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) From: David Wojick mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray mailto:s...@psu.edu> > Cc: Kathleen Shearer mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> >; richard.poyn...@btinternet.com <mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> ; scholc...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) mailto:goal@eprints.org> >; Glenn Hampson mailto: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 mailto: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 <mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
-acceptable solutions or solutions that work for groups whose needs differ from those of the negotiating groups. It’s hard to envision a system more global and more integrated than research; global approaches are needed. Best regards, Glenn Glenn Hampson Executive Director Science Communication Institute (SCI) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) From: Kathleen Shearer Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 11:26 AM To: Richard Poynder Cc: Glenn Hampson ; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action Hi Richard, I didn’t notice your question about cOAlition S overlap with COAR. There is probably some small overlap in institutional membership, but most of the COAR members are not funders and cOAlition S members generally are funders. That said, COAR and cOAlition S are working together in the area of repositories. In terms of collaboration, I have been aware of Glen’s initiative, but my co-authors and I (as well as many others) have a more ambitious goal. That is, to move towards full, open access and at the same time support and nurture bibliodiversity. In terms of collaboration, I think the “big tent” strategy can too easily result in lowest common denominator, watered-down objectives as well as erase any local, diverse, unique perspectives. A much more effective approach would be (and I reiterate) to develop regional or national strategies between funders, universities, libraries and researchers + international engagement across each community (like Plan S for funders or COAR for repositories). And, in response to Heather, of course the translation technologies are not perfect, but this is about having “good enough” tools to support global communications, while also ensuring local populations have access to their local scientific and scholarly output. Best, Kathleen Kathleen Shearer Executive Director Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) www.coar-repositories.org <http://www.coar-repositories.org> On Apr 20, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Richard Poynder mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> > wrote: Thanks for this Glenn, the fact that these two initiatives have emerged within days of each other without any apparent co-ordination (presumably because neither knew about the other one?) makes me wonder whether a new spirit of collaboration and cohesiveness is indeed emerging. I also wonder about the compatibility of the two groups. The Call for Action document appears to be a scholar-led initiative expressing concern about the role that what are referred to as the oligopolists are playing in the scholarly publishing space. For instance, it states, “For decades, commercial companies in the academic publishing sector have been carrying out portfolio building strategies based on mergers and acquisitions of large companies as well as buying up small publishers or journals. The result of this has been a concentration of players in the sector, which today is dominated by a small number of companies who own thousands of journals and dozens of presses.” OSI appears to have been receiving funding from precisely these kind of companies, including legacy publishers and other for-profit organisations (http://osiglobal.org/sponsors/). In fact, in 2019 it seems to have received funding only from for-profit organisations. Or am I misreading? I realise the sums concerned are small, but it does make me wonder whether OSI can really do meaningful business with the authors of the Call to Action. I realise you were anticipating “a few boo birds” on mailing lists on the announcement of Plan A (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/osi2016-25/J9dJdeLyIng/0ryVgZ78AgAJ) , and perhaps you will view me as one of those boo birds. However I do wish both initiatives all the very best and I hope something good can come of them. My main concern is that no one has yet solved the collective action problem. I also wish that Kathleen had answered this part of my question: “How many members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S?" Richard Poynder From: Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > Sent: 20 April 2020 16:05 To: 'Kathleen Shearer' mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> >; richard.poyn...@btinternet.com <mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> ; scholc...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> ; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' mailto:goal@eprints.org> > Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action Hi Kathleen, Richard, Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. As you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today ( <http://plan-a.world/> http://plan-a.world). Pl
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
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) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) From: David Wojick Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray Cc: Kathleen Shearer ; richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; Glenn Hampson 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 mailto: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 <mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> > on behalf of Glenn Hampson mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM To: 'Kathleen Shearer' mailto:m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com> >; richard.poyn...@btinternet.com <mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> >; scholc...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> >; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' mailto: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=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746486702=HqX4dQyCuH8rAVD32rhxqwt7FR9edEJf6s449J3X550%3D=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 t
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
Hi Richard, The sums are indeed vanishingly small---US$5000 in late 2019, and only after lots of begging on my part Commercial publishers are, as far as I can tell, in a serious “hunkering down” mode at the moment, at least with regard to supporting efforts like OSI that are trying to encourage more connection and collaboration. Prior to 2019, all publishers (including commercial publishers) contributed about one quarter of the overall budget for our 2016, 2017, and 2018 conferences and work (the rest was contributed by UNESCO, foundations, and participants themselves). Without this support, we wouldn’t have been able to pay for travel expenses for participants from Africa, Latin America, SE Asia, and other locales where traveling to Washington DC costs more than a few hundred dollars. As you know, sponsors have zero input into our policy deliberations---none have ever asked for or received special dispensation. All this said, I honestly feel like this entire line of thinking about who should be allowed to contribute to the scholarly communication conversation is an affront (I’m not saying you started it, but it just doesn’t seem to go away). There is hardly a scholarly communication conference in the 2010-2018 time frame that didn’t include publisher support, and gladly. Publishers have been a willing and vital part of this conversation for generations. The whole mindset now that we don’t like publishers so they should be shunned is a red herring and is keeping us from working together in common cause toward goals that we all support. Personally, I worry more about the mindset of those who are entirely closed to working with the for-profit sector on the future of open research. There is no need to create this artificial barrier to progress. We can all work together effectively. We all have a variety of motives---as we do in every other enterprise in life. But in this case, we also all share a wealth of common ground, not the least of which is to improve research and improve the value of research to society. I think we can build a very effective future on this common ground instead of continuing along the path where we divide our community into those whose motives are “pure,” and those who also look to do this work in a sustainable business manner (which may involve making money so you’re not always and solely dependent on the largess of foundations and governments to ensure success). There should be room enough in this massive undertaking for everyone. My best, Glenn Glenn Hampson Executive Director Science Communication Institute (SCI) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) From: Richard Poynder Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 9:40 AM To: 'Glenn Hampson' ; 'Kathleen Shearer' ; richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action Thanks for this Glenn, the fact that these two initiatives have emerged within days of each other without any apparent co-ordination (presumably because neither knew about the other one?) makes me wonder whether a new spirit of collaboration and cohesiveness is indeed emerging. I also wonder about the compatibility of the two groups. The Call for Action document appears to be a scholar-led initiative expressing concern about the role that what are referred to as the oligopolists are playing in the scholarly publishing space. For instance, it states, “For decades, commercial companies in the academic publishing sector have been carrying out portfolio building strategies based on mergers and acquisitions of large companies as well as buying up small publishers or journals. The result of this has been a concentration of players in the sector, which today is dominated by a small number of companies who own thousands of journals and dozens of presses.” OSI appears to have been receiving funding from precisely these kind of companies, including legacy publishers and other for-profit organisations (http://osiglobal.org/sponsors/). In fact, in 2019 it seems to have received funding only from for-profit organisations. Or am I misreading? I realise the sums concerned are small, but it does make me wonder whether OSI can really do meaningful business with the authors of the Call to Action. I realise you were anticipating “a few boo birds” on mailing lists on the announcement of Plan A (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/osi2016-25/J9dJdeLyIng/0ryVgZ78AgAJ) , and perhaps you will view me as one of those boo birds. However I do wish both initiatives all the very best and I hope something good can come of them. My main concern is that no one has yet solved the collective action problem. I also wish that Kathleen had answered this part of my question: “How many members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S
Re: [GOAL] [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). 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) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) From: 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) 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
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On sponsorship, transparency, scholarly publishing, and open access
Hi Richard (and please, could you post my reply to the GOAL list?), I'll just respond publicly to the questions of fact here---your point number 2. I would be happy to discuss these other matters with you via Skype or email. I certainly don't want to argue with you publicly about this. You and I have been discussing OSI since late 2014 and you are more than entitled to your right to suggest changes that will make this effort stronger (and as always, I welcome and value your input). With regard to the OSI membership question, as you know, we set out quotas for each stakeholder group. This is a moving target---we identify people who we think should be part of this effort, reach out to them, and hope they'll say yes. As it turns out, more librarians have an interest in this topic than do active researchers (for example)---and indeed, when university chancellors and provosts appoint people to represent their institutions, they almost invariably appoint the library dean to fill this role. So what you're seeing on this list are 4-5 dozen official university representatives (tasked by their provosts) who also happen to be library heads. And with regard to publisher counts, as I mentioned, you're including society publishers, university presses, etc. in your total. Here's the current target breakdown by stakeholder group (which has changed from day one and may change more as the year goes on---indeed, as was pointed out at OSI2017, many of these groups are more alike than unalike, so maybe our goal of getting a broad array of perspectives involved here should be met by some other means than stakeholder divisions): 1. Research universities (35%) 2. Commercial publishers (10%) 3. Scholarly societies and society publishers (5%) 4. Non-university research institutions and publishers (5%) 5. Open knowledge groups and "born-open" publishers (5%) 6. University presses and library publishers (5%) 7. Government policy organizations (5%) 8. Funders, public and private (5%) 9. Scholarly libraries and library groups (5%) 10. Broad faculty and education groups (5%) 11. Tech industry (5%) 12. Scholarly research infrastructure groups (5%) 13. Other universities and colleges (5%) 14. Scholarly communications and publishing industry experts (up to 20 per meeting) 15. Active researchers and academic authors (up to 20 per meeting) 16. Scholarly journal editors (up to 10 per meeting) 17. Journalists (up to 10 per meeting) 18. Elected officials (up to 10 per meeting) Best, Glenn Glenn Hampson Executive Director National Science Communication Institute (nSCI) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) 2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133 <tel:(206)%20417-3607> (206) 417-3607 | <mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> ghamp...@nationalscience.org | <http://nationalscience.org/> nationalscience.org From: Richard Poynder [mailto:richard.poyn...@cantab.net] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 2:06 AM To: goal@eprints.org; 'Glenn Hampson' <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] On sponsorship, transparency, scholarly publishing, and open access Dear Glenn, I appreciate your taking the time to respond to the thoughts I posted on the theme of publisher sponsorship. As you say, we don't want to try people's patience so I will just make a few comments in response. 1. On sponsorship. I think we both agree that, as you put it, "Right or wrong, sponsorships are part of modern society and an important part at that." What separates us I think is that you believe that since it is the way things work nowadays, we should just accept it and make the most of it. I guess you also feel it is a good thing. My view is that (since it is corrosive and gives even more power to the powerful) we should resist it, and speak out against it. You seem to be saying that since OSI's budget is only about $150,000 a year then where the money comes from is less important. If so, I can only say that I disagree. You go on to caricature my concern about publisher sponsorship in this way: "Hello, OSI? We'll give you $100k if you promote Product X as the new solution to peer review?" Really? Can I keep $99k of that for my legal bills?" I would hope that a careful reading of my text would show that my argument is not really that simplistic. In fact, my comments about OSI were one small part of a larger argument, and I would invite people to read the whole text, which is available here: http://bit.ly/2taOuoL 2. On OSI membership. I assume we are both working from the document you posted recently to the OSI list, which shows that there are 375 members of OSI. You rightly point out that establishing how to categorise people on the list is not always easy. However, by my reckoning the list i
Re: [GOAL] FW: [SCHOLCOMM] On sponsorship, transparency, scholarly publishing, and open access
Hi David, If you could kindly forward this along again I’d appreciate it. I stand corrected. I searched my spreadsheet for Elsevier only and not RELX as well (as you asked in your email). Including RELX, I come up with 11 OSI reps. We do want to avoid having any one company overrepresented in OSI so I’ll bring this up with my advisory board this summer as we try to codify OSI’s governance structure. Given the size of Elsevier and RELX together, having more reps from this company probably makes sense in the same way that we should also have more reps from mega-funders like NSF and NIH (although we have only have 2-3 rep from each of these groups). This said, both for overrepresentation reasons and the sake of appearances, I don’t know offhand what the right limit should be. (But we’ll work on this, also taking into account that Elsevier is just a part of RELX. RELX itself, as you know, has many interests outside of Elsevier and scholarly publishing, so having good representation from both “units” may also be the appropriate solution here---from RELX the tech giant as well as Elsevier the commercial publishing unit). In the meantime, I deeply apologize to our Elsevier and RELX colleagues for speaking so openly here about this quota question. This approach is distasteful and disrespectful---especially the suggestion that the individuals who contribute their time and expertise to OSI are “lobbying”---but since these questions were posed publicly, this approach is also, unfortunately, necessary for the honesty and integrity of the OSI effort. David, with regard to the CPIP report you mention, I invite you to review the OSI listserv conversations on this (our conversations are open for viewing at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/osi2016-25). This report was roundly ridiculed by many OSI members and in fact people were asking why we couldn’t directly question the authors about this. So I did, in fact, reach out to Dr. Viswanathan and he graciously agreed to take questions from the OSI list about his report, but I’ve been too busy with OSI2017 follow-up matters to get this particular thread startedI hope to find the right moment soon to reintroduce this topic. I hope that was the extent of your inference---that RELX support of this paper affected Dr. Viswanathan’s analysis (spoiler alert: Dr. Viswanathan is not a scholcomm expert and he is, in fact, interested in learning from the OSI community). I certainly hope you aren’t also impugning the integrity of George Mason University here as well (I can’t tell if this was your intent---I can only hope that it wasn’t). Does this address your questions? I see I have an email from Richard to answer as well this morning---more coffee Thank you and best regards, Glenn Glenn Hampson Executive Director National Science Communication Institute (nSCI) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) 2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133 (206) 417-3607 <tel:(206)%20417-3607> | <mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> ghamp...@nationalscience.org | <http://nationalscience.org/> nationalscience.org From: David Prosser [mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 1:21 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> Cc: Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] FW: [SCHOLCOMM] On sponsorship, transparency, scholarly publishing, and open access Please find below a response from Glenn where he kindly confirms that Elsevier/RELX is the single largest contributor of delegates to OSI. Glenn thinks 7 out of almost 400, the list I’ve seen suggests 12. But rather than quibble about figures we can agree that, for whatever reason, Elsevier clearly considers OSI a valuable forum to spend it’s lobbying effort - both in time and money. Glenn also mentions the commitment of George Mason University and that reminded me of another interesting sponsorship ‘event' that Richard didn’t mention. I’m sure that people will recall the recent thought piece on ‘Open-Access Mandates and the Seductively False Promise of “Free”' (https://cpip.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2014/04/Viswanathan-Mossoff-Open-Access-Mandates-and-the-Seductively-False-Promise-of-Free.pdf) from the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property at George Mason. The argument was that government-mandated open access policies were wrong in principle and an infringement of publishers’ rights. Through what I assume was an oversight the paper failed to mention that the Center is funded in part by the RELX Group. Of course, the Center is at pains to confirm that such sponsorship in no way influences what they publish as thought pieces or the stance they take. David On 20 Jul 2017, at 01:35, Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org <mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > wrote:
Re: [GOAL] FW: [SCHOLCOMM] On sponsorship, transparency, scholarly publishing, and open access
Hi David, Can you kindly post my reply to the GOAL list? Yes---contributions to OSI from legacy publishers increased year on year but so did our contributions from foundations. And in 2018, we hope that the contribution from UNESCO will be significantly larger than now. Indeed, our “fully-funded” budget for OSI means receiving significant funding from a very wide variety of sources (in which case publisher contributions will drop significantly as a percentage of the overall total). As a matter of principle, while we are very grateful for the interest and support from commercial publishers, we wouldn’t want their share of support to get much higher than now and we don’t think it will. The commercial publisher executives I’ve spoken with know this and agree with this as well---they also don’t want OSI to be seen as a tool of the publishers. Just as we don’t want the membership of OSI to become too homogenous, so too we don’t want the funding to become too lopsided from any one group. Again, though, the story here isn’t the increase---we’re a young and tiny group and we’re not talking about a pattern here or a lot of dollars---just a year on year change. I hope that if our funding from publishers drops next year as a percentage of the total you will also treat this as being newsworthy. As for the 390-ish individual members of OSI, I’d need to do a hard count of bylines since we organize these folks by stakeholder and not institutional affiliations, but offhand I think you’re right---I think Elsevier probably has more individuals who are part of OSI (seven?) than any other institution (so we view these delegates as 7 of the 35 total commercial publisher reps). George Mason University has six (I think), George Washington University has five, the Smithsonian Institution has four OSI reps, Columbia University has three, etc.---point being that several of the 250 organizations represented in OSI have multiple delegates. But again, offhand, yes---I think Elsevier may be the winner. It’s important to note with this information, though, that having multiple delegates doesn’t translate into more voting power or more of a voice in conversations. As I mentioned previously, our commercial publisher colleagues have not been vocal participants in OSI listserv conversations to-date, nor have George Mason University staff and faculty said more than their fair share. Indeed, our top contributors to this list are widespread and include library leaders, open advocates, scholcomm experts (including Richard Poynder, who is a top contributor), and a wide variety of others, male and female, old (like me) and young, university-based and non-university, US and elsewhere. I hope this helps. David---we would be honored to include you in this conversation. Just say the word. Sincerely, Glenn Glenn Hampson Executive Director National Science Communication Institute (nSCI) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) 2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133 (206) 417-3607 <tel:(206)%20417-3607> | <mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> ghamp...@nationalscience.org | <http://nationalscience.org/> nationalscience.org From: David Prosser [mailto:david.pros...@rluk.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 3:27 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> Cc: Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] FW: [SCHOLCOMM] On sponsorship, transparency, scholarly publishing, and open access OSI is very transparent about it’s funding and that transparency shows clearly what Richard has stated - that the contribution from commercial, legacy publishers has increased and now makes up a larger proportion of the total than it did previously. Can I also confirm the the organisation with the most representatives within OSI is Elsevier (including its parent company RELX)? Thanks David On 19 Jul 2017, at 20:11, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@cantab.net <mailto:richard.poyn...@cantab.net> > wrote: From: Glenn Hampson [ <mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org] Sent: 19 July 2017 18:31 To: 'Richard Poynder' < <mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>; <mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org; 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' < <mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com> osi2016...@googlegroups.com> Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] On sponsorship, transparency, scholarly publishing, and open access Hi Everyone, I’d like to take this opportunity to invite everyone in the scholcomm community to nominate individuals (self-nominations are welcome) to participate in this year’s efforts of the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI). Here’s what we’re about (from a draft version of our preamble, which is being finalized this
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] A small, yet needed, correction to Glenn Hampson's claims
Hi Jean-Claude, Alas, you’re replying to my message that was sent to only to OSI delegates (in response to one delegate who shared your recent work with the group) with a billboard to thousands of people, including lists where I don’t have posting privileges. I don’t know quite how to reply---I’m certainly happy as always to speak with you any time. The OSI effort is still young, of course---this impact you speak of is something we’re still working on. The last meeting—OSI2017---wrapped up just a few weeks ago and the papers from it won’t be out until mid-June. Our hope is that the ideas in these papers will be begin to lay the groundwork for the road ahead---tbd. They’ll be posted on the OSI website at osinitiative.org (the papers from OSI2016 are posted there as well). In the meantime, videos from OSI2017 are available on our YouTube channel at <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWoUi5JsrjZfQw4fRdRuvNg> https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWoUi5JsrjZfQw4fRdRuvNg. In the meantime, I hope you didn’t take offense at being called an idealist. I mean this with the deepest respect---the world needs idealists. As for your concern, I apologize if I misstated your involvement in OSI. You were part of the original group (the Open Science Initiative) that debated how to approach future debate on this issue (which led to the formation of the Open Scholarship Initiative)---you, Richard Poynder, Mike Eisen, Rick Anderson, Peter Suber (only briefly), David Wojick, Dee Magnoni, Joyce Ogburn, Joann Delenick, and about 100 others---but if I recall correctly, I think you, Richard, Rick and David were the main conversation drivers. And yes---not everyone signed the final OSI paper (here’s the link: <http://bit.ly/1DJwRLT> http://bit.ly/1DJwRLT). I’m not sure how to address the rest, like our “amusing recruitment” (which falls on my lap, so I’m sorry if I’ve offended)---OSI currently has 380+ senior representatives from 200+ institutions, 18 stakeholder groups and 24 countries around the world (although, as Richard has rightly noted, we need more international representation, as well as more researcher/author voices, and we’re actively working on both). You haven’t been part of the OSI listserv conversations though---which totaled several thousand emails last year alone (much to the delight of some and dismay of others)---so I think you’re referring to the old/original list when you refer to the online conversation losing interest (I think anyone on the OSI list can attest to how rich the conversation has been, although one of our goals this year is to figure out how to make it a little more focused---maybe be able to peel off side conversations into other tools or forums). Anyway, I am sorry to respond to you on-list here; I guess I’m relying on you to share my reply with your colleagues on the Global OpenAccess list and the OpenScience list. All the best, Glenn Glenn Hampson Executive Director National Science Communication Institute (nSCI) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) osi-logo-2016-25-mail 2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133 (206) 417-3607 | <mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org> ghamp...@nationalscience.org | <http://nationalscience.org/> nationalscience.org From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org [mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org] On Behalf Of Jean-Claude Guédon Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 4:04 PM To: scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); openscie...@lists.uni-goettingen.de Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] A small, yet needed, correction to Glenn Hampson's claims Apologies for cross-posting Recently, Martin Hicks, from the Beilstein Institut, was kind enough to signal my recent piece, "Open Access - Toward the Internet of the Mind" on the Chminf list, and perhaps elsewhere. In response, Glenn Hampson, from the Open Scholarship Institute, sent the following response: Thanks for sharing this Martin. Jean-Claude Guedon has obviously been an important part of the open access movement. Unbeknownst to many, he also played an important role in helping launch the Open Scholarship Initiative (although he might be reluctant to admit this judging by his prose!). OSI delegates have a broad range of opinions on the many issues he discusses here, and about the direction of open access in general. And I think we all admire Professor Guedon’s idealism and the work he and others have done to raise society’s collective awareness of the open issue. Speaking only for myself, though, I don’t find it particularly helpful to continue to portray BOAI as the current epicenter of the open effort when in fact BOAI did not (and does not) represent a broad cross-section of ideas and perspectives. That the world has become only 15% open after 15 years of BOAI suggests to many that we should try a different approach to open, and this should be viewe
