Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Samuel Moore]

Hi Glenn,

Thanks for sharing this report with the list. I may need to read this again
in more detail, but one thing I don’t quite understand is the focus on
‘high-level experts’. You write:

‘There has never been an inclusive, global effort to bring everyone
together first—broadly, at scale and at a high, policy-making level—to
identify common ground needs and interests, then collectively brainstorm
options, and only then design specific policies and solutions that work
within this globally operational and sustainable framework’

I’ve always felt that one of the more exciting things about open access has
been the influence of grassroots and activist strands of advocacy, or those
that specifically foreground local and diverse contexts instead of
broad-scale, top-down and policy-based approaches. Are you able to say a
bit more about what ‘high-level’ means here and how your approach would
preserve these contexts without imposing your common-ground solutions onto
them?

The reason I’m asking this is because your report mentions my work on
openness as a ‘boundary object’, which is a term developed by Star and
Griesemer to describe concepts that have both a shared flexible meaning and
a nuanced local meaning that allow the possibility of cooperation between
local groups. I argued that open access is one such boundary object because
it means many things to different people but is broadly recognisable across
contexts. However, the problem with introducing boundary objects into the
policy sphere is that they become regulated and homogenised, simply because
it is difficult to preserve local contexts in a global setting. This kind
of homogenisation tends to benefit those with more power (in this case
large commercial publishers operating at scale) at the expense of the
bibliodiversity that Kathleen is arguing in favour of nurturing.

I’d be interested to hear more on the 'high-level' focus of your group and
whether you see it as antagonistic to non-high-level approaches. Put
another way, are you not simply looking for common ground between the
groups who are already in charge of scholarly communication (policymakers,
commercial publishers, senior figures, etc.) to the exclusion of those
operating at the margins?

Thanks!

Sam


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


On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:27 PM Glenn Hampson 
wrote:

> Hi David,
>
>
>
> In reply to your statement, “that people with fundamental disagreements
> can agree on general principles does nothing to resolve those
> disagreements,” I deeply disagree. To my knowledge and experience---which,
> granted, appears to differ from yours---agreeing on general principles is,
> in fact, a prerequisite to actually resolving disagreements as opposed to
> just papering over them. I would be happy to debate this with you off-list.
> I don’t want to exhaust the good will of our audience here (if we haven’t
> already).
>
>
>
> But to elaborate, from page 18 of the paper (the long version): “….common
> ground is a unique, "expanded pie" state. It isn't a grand compromise where
> we manage to divide a static pie into smaller, less satisfying slices, but
> creating a larger pie where new value is available throughout the system.
> In this case, then, common ground doesn't mean seeking a compromise between
> embargoes and immediate release; or between APCs and subscriptions; or
> between publish or perish culture in academia and something a little kinder
> and gentler. It means thinking beyond, focusing not on picking specific
> solutions but on understanding how our interests overlap lest we get
> weighted down by too many solutions or too many solutions we don’t like. By
> identifying the broad contours of common ground that exist in this
> conversation we can build the guardrails and mileposts for our
> collaborative efforts and then allow the finer-grained details of
> community-developed plans more flexibility and guidance to evolve over
> time.”
>
>
>
> Please note that examples of common ground perspectives from OSI’s five
> years of work are included on report pages 19-26, and also in Annex 1
> (pages 39-53).
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
>
> *Glenn Hampson*
> *Executive Director*
> *Science Communication Institute (SCI) *
>
> *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 <
> m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>;  <
> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>;  <
> scholc...@lists.ala.org>; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <
> goal@eprints.org>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <
> osi2016...@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly
> Communi

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Peter Murray-Rust]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:48 AM Samuel Moore 
wrote:

I share Sam's concerns.


> I’d be interested to hear more on the 'high-level' focus of your group and
> whether you see it as antagonistic to non-high-level approaches. Put
> another way, are you not simply looking for common ground between the
> groups who are already in charge of scholarly communication (policymakers,
> commercial publishers, senior figures, etc.) to the exclusion of those
> operating at the margins?
>
> I agree,
I am concerned about several demographics:
* citizens outside academia
* young people
* the Global South.

I am an old white anglophone male so I cannot speak other that to P.urge
that the initiative is taken by different demographics.
I also think the effect of the capitalist publishing industry, whether
closed or Open Access has been hugely detrimental. To the extent that I can
carry the views of others , I believe these views are shared by many.

P.

>
>
-- 
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign
with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Sarven Capadisli]

On 15/04/2020 16.52, Kathleen Shearer wrote:
> To that end, we are calling on researchers, policy makers, funders,
> service providers, universities and libraries from around the world to
> work together to address the issue of bibliodiversity in scholarly
> communication.
> 
> Read the blog post here
> 
>  and full
> paper here 


That is a great goal, which has had my full support for years. I still
think a more fundamental shift in thinking in the community is required
to make real progress.

For instance, OA publishing in practice requires actors in the ecosystem
to go through third-party actors and systems.

It is hard to see the transition if we factor in the control dimension
and power dynamics. The question of what constitutes a contribution or
how people can participate quickly turns into understanding what works
for the third-parties as opposed to content creators. As I see it,
whether third-parties are non- or for-profit is not as significant as it
may seem for the "big picture".

If we genuinely want to realise a diverse and inclusive ecosystem, we
need to acknowledge and enable different entry points. That doesn't
happen by locking things down, whether that's done through using
specific kinds of identifiers, data shapes, or applications.

The fact of the matter is that at this point in time, the machinery and
policies underlying scholarly communication is mostly a soup of vendor
lock-in solutions.

Until "self-publishing" through open Web standards (which does *not*
preclude peer review etc) is acknowledged on equal grounds in the
ecosystem, we will continue to ask ourselves the same questions about OA
simply because we haven't addressed the core issues pertaining to
autonomy and universal access.

-Sarven
https://csarven.ca/#i

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Thatcher, Sanford Gray]

I have a simple question (whose answer may, however, be complicated) perhaps 
relevant to defining what "common ground" means, and it is this: does anyone 
know how many researchers who publish regularly work outside of institutions of 
higher education in STEM fields compared with HSS fields?  My wild guess would 
be 30%  or more for STEM compared with 5% or less for HSS. For the latter there 
would be places like the Institute for Advanced Study, which included among its 
permanent faculty such stellar scholars as Albert Hirschman and Michael Walzer, 
although most people in residence at the Institute have been visiting scholars 
whose home bases are usually universities. Everybody knows that there are a 
huge number of researchers active in private industry.

The reason I ask the question is that, in theory, higher education might itself 
be able to take care of all publishing in HSS fields through university presses 
or affiliated scholarly societies. It is perhaps no accident that only about 
20% of the publishing university presses do is in STEM fields (and only a 
handful of presses do most of it), where publishing has been dominated by large 
commercial publishers at least since WWII.

If this hypothesis were to prove correct, it suggests that "common ground" 
could mean mission-driven nonprofit publishing for HSS fields whereas for STEM 
fields the interests of commercial publishers would play a much greater role in 
determining what that common ground is.

A subhypothesis might separate out SS fields from H fields because many more 
commercial publishers are invested in social sciences than in the humanities.

Sandy Thatcher

From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  on 
behalf of Glenn Hampson 
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:14 AM
To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' ; 'Global Open Access List (Successor 
of AmSci)' ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com 

Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; 
'scholcomm' 
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
Communications: A Call for Action


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.  [A picture containing device  Description automatically generated] 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.



  1.  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

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Kathleen Shearer]

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



> On Apr 21, 2020, at 11:14 AM, Glenn Hampson  
> 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:
>  
> 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. 
>  
> 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 
> signatories will lead this effort---we’ll know more in the coming months 
> about whether we have enough signatories to do this, whether we have the 
> budget, etc. The “financial” tab on the Plan A site describes what we’ll be 
> able to do with various levels of funding.
>  
> That’s my short answer. Does this help? I’m happy to elaborate---probably 
> off-list unless there’s a groundswell of support for having me send another 
> 5000 word email to the list 😊
>  
> Thanks again for your interest and best regards,
>  
> Glenn
>  
>  
> Glenn Hampson
> Executive Director
> Science Communication Institute (SCI) 
> Program Director
> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: Peter Murray-Rust mailto:pm...@cam.ac.uk>> 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 3:21 AM
> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)  >
> Cc: Glenn Hampson  >; The Open Scholarship Initiative 
> mailto:osi2016...@googlegroups.com>>; scholcomm 
> mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org>>
> Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> Co

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Peter Murray-Rust]

Thanks for outlining this. There are 300-400 people on the OSI list. I
could not find:
* any researchers
* any doctors/medics
* anyone from the Global South

But there are 9 directors from Elsevier.
And everyone else is director of this, chief of that, CEO of the other.

In the early days of OA in UK The
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-open-up-publicly-funded-research
Finch
Report invited the closed access publishers to help reform publishing. For
many of us this was a a complete betrayal of the radicalism required. No
wonder there has been to progress. That articles are priced at 3500 Euro.
That 80% of the social distancing literature is behind a paywall.
This mega committee is a repeat. It cannot reform. It will legitimise the
next digital landgrab by the vested interests.
There are publishers who create documents (Read Cube) that are specifically
designed to make it impossible to re-use knowledge. And no one except a few
of us care.
m.
The business model of megapublishers is to make it as hard as possible to
read science. And then collect rent. In software the world works towards
interoperable solutions ; in "publishing"  we have 100+ competing groups
who try as hard as possible to make universal knowledge available.

In the coronavirus pandemic we need global knowledge. The person who does
this without publisher control will be sued and possibly jailed. The only
person who has liberated science will be jailed if she sets foot in USA.

This is not fantasy. I have seen graduate students careers destroyed by
publishers, with no support from their institutions. I myself have had
pushback for text and data mining; I have had no practical support from
anyone in the Academic system. Although they got the law changed to allow
TDM, no Universities in UK dare do anything the publishers might frown on.

I've been on and seen initiative after initiative. I've launched one
(Panton Principles) - it probably actually made some difference to protect
data before the publishers thought of grabbing it. But most
inituiatives achieve nothing. And if they are stuffed with publishers all
they do is increase the prices they charge for OA (like DEAL, PlanS and the
rest). OA is just a way of milking the taxpayer.

The only thing that will change this is building a better system with a
fresh start, almost certainly with young radical people. And Coronavirus
might just do that when citizens realize how badly they've been robbed.

P.



-- 
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign
with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Glenn Hampson]

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  

 

 





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 
signatories will lead this eff

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Thatcher, Sanford Gray]

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 
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:40 AM
To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; 'Peter Murray-Rust' 
; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' 
; samuel.moor...@gmail.com 
Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; 
'scholcomm' 
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
Science Communication Institute 
(SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative 
(OSI)

[cid:image005.jpg@01D617C0.EF9CF910]







From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  On 
Behalf Of Thatcher, Sanford Gray
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:05 AM
To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' ; 'Global Open Access List (Successor 
of AmSci)' ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com; Glenn Hampson 

Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; 
'scholcomm' 
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 defining what "common ground" means, and it is this: does anyone 
know how many researchers who publish regularly work outside of institutions of 
higher education in STEM fields compared with HSS fields?  My wild guess would 
be 30%  or more for STEM compared with 5% or less for HSS. For the latter there 
would be places like the Institute for Advanced Study, which included among its 
permanent faculty such stellar scholars as Albert Hirschman and Michael Walzer, 
although most people in residence at the Institute have been visiting scholars 
whose home bases are usually universities. Everybody knows that there are a 
huge number of researchers active in private industry.



The reason I ask the question is that, in theory, higher education might itself 
be able to take care of all publishing in HSS fields through university presses 
or affiliated scholarly societies. It is perhaps no accident that only about 
20% of the publishing university presses do is in STEM fields (and only a 
handful of presses do most of it), where publishing has been dominated by large 
commercial publishers at least since WWII.



If this hypothesis were to prove correct, it suggests that "common ground" 
could mean mission-driven nonprofit publishing for HSS fields whereas for STEM 
fields the interests of commercial publishers would play a much greater role in 
determining what that common ground is.



A subhypothesis might separate out SS fields from H fields because many more 
commercial publishers are invested in social sciences than in the humanities.



Sandy Thatcher



From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org 
mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org>> on 
behalf of Glenn Hampson 
mailto:ghamp...@nationalscience.org>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:14 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>>
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



Hi Sam, Peter,



Thanks so much for your emails. I’m sorry for the delay in responding--

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Glenn Hampson]

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 citizens realize ho

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Heather Piwowar]

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

Our Research : We build tools to make scholarly
research more open, connected, and reusable—for everyone.
follow at @researchremix , @our_research
, and @unpaywall



On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Glenn Hampson 
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*
> *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 <
> osi2016...@googlegroups.com>; 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 sc

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Glenn Hampson]

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

  Our Research: We build tools to make scholarly 
research more open, connected, and reusable—for everyone.

follow at   @researchremix,  
 @our_research, and @ 
 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
  Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
  Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

  

 

 

 

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 directors from Elsevier.
And everyone else is director of this, chief of that, CEO of the other.

In the early days of OA in U

[GOAL] COVID budget cuts, big deals, faculty positions and salaries & bibliodiversity

[Heather Morrison]

Many governments are, or will, need to divert funds from the usual priorities 
to address the pandemic and issues arising such as economic impact. No doubt 
this will impact many post-secondary institutions. For example, yesterday we 
learned that post-secondary institutions in Manitoba have been asked to 
decrease expenditures by 30%
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-universities-budget-cuts-pandemic-1.5537883

Most faculty members are not involved in making decisions about library 
budgets. They likely see the big deals of commercial publishers as a service 
that they do not wish to lose, rather than high-priced services that are paid 
for from the same pool of funds that pay their salaries.

One way to help faculty understand would be to prepare an explanation of the 
cost of the big deals that puts the two together, i.e. if we need to cut 
something, should be cut x number of faculty positions or big deal y (or x% of 
faculty salaries v. big deal y), for presentation to faculty associations and 
university administrators.

Explaining the financial and academic-social benefits of an approach 
prioritizing bibliodiversity would be a little bit more complicated, but 
arguments that faculty would likely understand and support can be made. For 
example, instead of 100% of savings from cancelling all big deals to retain as 
many faculty as possible, perhaps using 80% of savings for this purpose and 
using the remainder to provide salaries for academics and support staff in 
local publishing (university press, scholarly society or library-based).

I suspect this is best done proactively, early on when discussions about how to 
go about cuts are getting started.

Is anyone doing anything like this? Thoughts?


Dr. Heather Morrison

Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa

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

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[David Wojick]

I dislike metaphors in reasoning but in the travel case the publishers are more 
like the official who approves your visa to enter their country, for a fee. The 
idea that one can restructure an industry without consulting the leading 
producers strikes me as unlikely to work. It is a coup and they are notable 
limited in success.

David

> On Apr 21, 2020, at 2:15 PM, Heather Piwowar  wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
> Our Research: We build tools to make scholarly research more open, connected, 
> and reusable—for everyone.
> follow at @researchremix, @our_research, and @unpaywall
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Glenn Hampson 
>>  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
>> 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 
>

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[David Wojick]

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&D 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  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 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:40 AM
> To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; 'Peter Murray-Rust' 
> ; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' 
> ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com 
> Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; 
> 'scholcomm' 
> 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
> Science Communication Institute (SCI)
> Program Director
> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
> 
>  
>  
>  
> From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  On 
> Behalf Of Thatcher, Sanford Gray
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:05 AM
> To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' ; 'Global Open Access List 
> (Successor of AmSci)' ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com; Glenn 
> Hampson 
> Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; 
> 'scholcomm' 
> 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 defining what "common ground" means, and it is this: does anyone 
> know how many researchers who publish regularly work outside of institutions 
> of higher education in STEM fields compared with HSS fields?  My wild guess 
> would be 30%  or more for STEM compared with 5% or less for HSS. For the 
> latter there would be places like the Institute for Advanced Study, which 
> included among its permanent faculty such stellar scholars as Albert 
> Hirschman and Michael Walzer, although most people in residence at the 
> Institute have been visiting scholars whose home bases are usually 
> universities. Everybody knows that there are a huge number of researchers 
> active in private industry.
>  
> The reason I ask the question is that, in theory, higher education might 
> itself be able to take care of all publishing in HSS fields through 
> university presses or affiliated scholarly societies. It is perhaps no 
> accident that only about 20% of the publishing university presses do is in 
> STEM fields (and only a handful of presses do most of it), where publishing 
> has been dominated by large commercial publishers at least since WWII.
>  
> If this hypothesis were to prove correct, it suggests that "common ground" 
> could mean mission-driven nonprofit publishing for HSS fields whereas for 
> STEM fields the interests of commercial publishers would play a much greater 
> role in determining what that common ground is.
>  
> A subhypothesis might separate out SS fields from H fields because many more 
> commercial publishers are invested in social sciences than in the humanities.
>  
> Sandy Thatcher
> From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org  on 
> behalf of Glenn Hampson 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:14 AM
> To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' ; 'Global Open Access List 
> (Successor of AmSci)' ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com 
> 
> Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; 
> 'scholcomm' 
> Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] [GOAL] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly 
> Communications: A Call for Action
>  
> 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:
>  
> 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 re

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

David Wojick, 21/04/20 21:52:
> I dislike metaphors in reasoning but in the travel case the publishers are 
> more like the official who approves your visa to enter their country, for a 
> fee.

Not really, more like the taxi driver of a taxi cartel which for some 
reason is the only connection to the airport unless you're willing to walk.

Federico
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action

[Dr Andrew A. Adams]

A fair amount of Google research does end up published. It's impossible to 
know what percentage. However, there is not the "publish or perish" pressure 
on Google researchers to publish. In most cases, they are encourged to engage 
with the broader research community via attendance at relevant conferences 
(academic, academic/industry, multi-stakeholder) as and when it's important 
for their research and personal career development. In the fields of privcy 
and security (one of my core areas) i regularly encounter Google-based 
researchers on technical and socio-technical issues at conferences and read 
their papers. In addition to a lack of external pressure to publish from 
their institution, they do have to get permission to submit from managers 
which in the case of conferences or special issues with tight deadlines, can 
lead the researchers to be less likely to publish. This is similar to many 
other tech-related companies such as telcos (I've worked directly with people 
at KDDI, the second largest Japanese telco).

Other major applied research organisations in tech vary a lot. MS reserachers 
are invovled in some fields quite heavily, but not in others. I don't believe 
i've ever seen a paper published by an Amazon researcher, and it's well-known 
that Amazon discourages company-based commits to FLOSS projects (but on a 
case-by-case basis allows individuals to submit code as individuals if they 
can make a case that it serves Amazon's purposes for the general code-base to 
include Amazon's own developments).


-- 
Dr Andrew A Adams  a...@meiji.ac.jp
Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics
Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan   http://www.a-cubed.info/


___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal