Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations

[Peter Baumann]

Dear Maria,

On 28.07.2018 20:08, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
> Dear Peter,
>
> Thanks for the explanation, I'm a software engineer and I know very well how
> the process work. SQL is indeed a good example of a good standard almost
> everyone follows. But I would bet that's an exception in software.

I cannot completely disagree, unfortunately - much software is not built to such
rigorous processes, and in particular not with an exact specification. During my
work in the ISO SQL group (where we brought in datacubes) I have learnt to
deeply respect the rigor of work there.

>
> I raised the intended bugs thing because in recent years it had been very
> common to find intended "bugs" in proprietary licensed software to steal data
> or open ports to monitor usage. You never know how that will affect your
> tests. When you use software that you don't know what is doing in the
> background, you can't be really sure what the result will be.

hm, this still is unspecific allegations. Two thoughts:
- can you name concrete cases?
- IMHO we are talking of completely unrelated things here. I understand that
some people feel uneasy about a monitoring (although this is very helpful also
for open-source projects where you are in need of statistics to claim your
importance - we refrained from it after internal discussion). What you describe
would not affect accuracy / correctness of tool results in any way, though.

cheers,
Peter


>
> Kind regards, 
> Maria. 
>
>
> El sáb., 28 jul. 2018 19:48, Peter Baumann  > escribió:
>
> Dear Maria,
>
> On 25.07.2018 10:06, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Peter Baumann
>> mailto:p.baum...@jacobs-university.de>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>>
>> while I could not agree more to what you say there is one point to
>> disagree with:
>>
>>
>> On 24.07.2018 18:43, Christian Willmes wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Suchith,
>>>
>>> I understand your point, and I also support your views on this, but
>>> this is from my perspective a too personal/particular issue, as to
>>> have it as an "OSGeo open letter". Also, because this is more of an
>>> ICA and not so much an OSGeo issue, I think.
>>>
>>> First, I would keep it more general. You address a particular issue
>>> (UN SDG book published by esri), and also some personal background
>>> (this should not matter to the addressed subject). I would recommend
>>> you keep it from being personal and denouncing proprietary GIS
>>> vendors. If a company plays by the rules of science, there is
>>> nothing wrong about that company publishing a scientific book. I.e.
>>> almost all book publishers are commercial companies with interests
>>> somehow and somewhere.
>>>
>>> You need to “attack” scientific “wrong doing” by that particular
>>> company in conducting the editing and publication of that book.
>>> Publishing books if done correctly is not wrong, even by a vendor
>>> with vested interests. But if you witness, for example, that
>>> submissions using open source GIS solutions are disadvantaged
>>> against the submissions using products of the proprietary GIS vendor
>>> publishing the book, that would be the point to raise and attack.
>>>
>>> Second, better write about how it should be done to avoid this
>>> negative “Fake Science” things from happening. Here the idea of Open
>>> Science and Reproducible Science is key, i.e. the most openness and
>>> transparency possible. We just need more transparency in science and
>>> also in the whole process of editing/reviewing and publishing a
>>> book. And this is where OSGeo can contribute. Basically, real
>>> reproducible and open science is not possible without open source
>>> software. If you can’t see how something is implemented, you can not
>>> really reproduce the results.
>>>
>>
>> No. Open science and open source software are fundamentally different
>> things. For example, if you derive stats from some data set via SQL
>> it does not matter whether it comes from open-source PostgreSQL or
>> from proprietary Oracle. Because the SQL language in its syntax and
>> semantics is standardized, and it is assured thereby that both
>> systems will deliver the same results. So standards actually are a
>> prerequisite for science to be comparable, but surely not open 
>> source.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you use proprietary products and can't verify that the result is not
>> due to a bug (even an intended bug ), you are missing an important step
>> on verifiability. Open Source (as in "I can see the code") is an
>> important piece of open science.
>
> that's not what software engineers would do 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations

[María Arias de Reyna]

Dear Peter,

Thanks for the explanation, I'm a software engineer and I know very well
how the process work. SQL is indeed a good example of a good standard
almost everyone follows. But I would bet that's an exception in software.

I raised the intended bugs thing because in recent years it had been very
common to find intended "bugs" in proprietary licensed software to steal
data or open ports to monitor usage. You never know how that will affect
your tests. When you use software that you don't know what is doing in the
background, you can't be really sure what the result will be.

Kind regards,
Maria.


El sáb., 28 jul. 2018 19:48, Peter Baumann 
escribió:

> Dear Maria,
> On 25.07.2018 10:06, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Peter Baumann <
> p.baum...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>>
>> while I could not agree more to what you say there is one point to
>> disagree with:
>>
>> On 24.07.2018 18:43, Christian Willmes wrote:
>>
>> Dear Suchith,
>>
>> I understand your point, and I also support your views on this, but this
>> is from my perspective a too personal/particular issue, as to have it as an
>> "OSGeo open letter". Also, because this is more of an ICA and not so much
>> an OSGeo issue, I think.
>>
>> First, I would keep it more general. You address a particular issue (UN
>> SDG book published by esri), and also some personal background (this should
>> not matter to the addressed subject). I would recommend you keep it from
>> being personal and denouncing proprietary GIS vendors. If a company plays
>> by the rules of science, there is nothing wrong about that company
>> publishing a scientific book. I.e. almost all book publishers are
>> commercial companies with interests somehow and somewhere.
>>
>> You need to “attack” scientific “wrong doing” by that particular company
>> in conducting the editing and publication of that book. Publishing books if
>> done correctly is not wrong, even by a vendor with vested interests. But if
>> you witness, for example, that submissions using open source GIS solutions
>> are disadvantaged against the submissions using products of the proprietary
>> GIS vendor publishing the book, that would be the point to raise and attack.
>>
>> Second, better write about how it should be done to avoid this negative
>> “Fake Science” things from happening. Here the idea of Open Science and
>> Reproducible Science is key, i.e. the most openness and transparency
>> possible. We just need more transparency in science and also in the whole
>> process of editing/reviewing and publishing a book. And this is where OSGeo
>> can contribute. Basically, real reproducible and open science is not
>> possible without open source software. If you can’t see how something is
>> implemented, you can not really reproduce the results.
>>
>>
>> No. Open science and open source software are fundamentally different
>> things. For example, if you derive stats from some data set via SQL it does
>> not matter whether it comes from open-source PostgreSQL or from proprietary
>> Oracle. Because the SQL language in its syntax and semantics is
>> standardized, and it is assured thereby that both systems will deliver the
>> same results. So standards actually are a prerequisite for science to be
>> comparable, but surely not open source.
>>
>
>
> If you use proprietary products and can't verify that the result is not
> due to a bug (even an intended bug ), you are missing an important step on
> verifiability. Open Source (as in "I can see the code") is an important
> piece of open science.
>
>
> that's not what software engineers would do normally. If you feel a tool
> has a bug you'd
> - try to isolate through a minimal failing example
> - possibly try with another tool (in the case of PostgreSQL, maybe try
> MariaDB) for verification
> - definitely contact the support list (in the case of PostgreSQL, Regina &
> friends)
>
> Unless it is some simple scripting issue you (that is: I) normally don't
> stand a chance to dive into the code. Honestly, would we / could we spot a
> bug in the source code for executing an index-only plan of a distributed
> SQL query, after heuristic and cost-based optimizers have done their work?
> I could not.
>
> Good software engineering practice is to work specification-based, not by
> trying to hack yourself into code.
>
> And both of that _can_ work well with both open-source and proprietary
> tools. Again, SQL is the shining example: a good specification says it all.
>
> BTW, why do you raise, on the fly, the accusation that there may be
> "intended bugs"? Any evidence for this? I'd like to learn more about such
> cases.
>
> cheers,
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
> GeoForAll mailing 
> listGeoForAll@lists.osgeo.orghttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall
>
> --
> Dr. Peter Baumann
>  - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
>

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations

[Peter Baumann]

Hi Christian,


for sure a topic with lots of facets for discussion. Allow me to discontinue
here, though - reason being that (i) there was a very wise, unsurpassable post
by Mark Gahagan and (ii) Suchith has asked to close this thread, and as it is
"his" thread I want to respect it. Hope for your understanding!


cheers,

Peter



On 25.07.2018 10:53, Christian Willmes wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
>
> good point! And fair enough for your example on SQL which is an open standard
> and thus reproducible in theory and practice. My Point is more general,
> although it may not be 100% thought through yet, so comments are welcome. My
> argumetation on this is as follows:
>
>
> Scientific publications that deal for example with a GIS analysis on a
> specific topic, should be published in a way, that any reader of that study
> can practically reproduce its analysis and its results.
>
>
> From my point of view, for > 90% of publications in the GIS domain, this is
> not the case yet, either caused by constraints in data availability or
> software availability, or mostly by just the lack of precise documentation and
> citation of the data sources and the conduct of the processing workflow of the
> study. Hardware constraints are also a thing, but I think this should not be
> the concern of the scientist, to ensure his/her research is open and
> transparent and in practice and theory reproducible.
>
> Software wise, it would be from my point of view plain unscientific, if the
> results in the publication are produced with a proprietary ("point and click"
> without detailed documentation of processing steps taken) software, and
> additionally are not reproducible without a license of that software. Thus I
> would demand, to be able to label something Open Science or reproducible
> Science, access to the software (or at least precise definitions of how it is
> implemented, for example the source code) for reproducing the results must be
> a given. For example a script executing all the commands for the analysis
> workflow conducted, would do this precisely. If the script uses closed
> software, this would be less open compared to a script that uses open 
> software.
>
>
> But in the end I am sure, that these kinds of reproducible research
> publications, will end up using open source or at least open access (free for
> scientific use) software, because it will just generate more impact, if also
> Scientists with less access to expensive software can also built upon this
> research results and cite it accordingly...
>
>
> Think also about the positive feedback from science funding for development of
> open software instead of paying for licenses, researchers would pay
> programmers or companies that offer according programming solutions to develop
> software for their scientific needs and interests. The aspect that this open
> approach adheres also better to the understanding of how science works or
> should work in general, is also an important point.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Christian
>
>
> Am 25.07.2018 um 09:57 schrieb Peter Baumann:
>>
>> Hi Christian,
>>
>>
>> while I could not agree more to what you say there is one point to disagree 
>> with:
>>
>>
>> On 24.07.2018 18:43, Christian Willmes wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear Suchith,
>>>
>>> I understand your point, and I also support your views on this, but this is
>>> from my perspective a too personal/particular issue, as to have it as an
>>> "OSGeo open letter". Also, because this is more of an ICA and not so much an
>>> OSGeo issue, I think.
>>>
>>> First, I would keep it more general. You address a particular issue (UN SDG
>>> book published by esri), and also some personal background (this should not
>>> matter to the addressed subject). I would recommend you keep it from being
>>> personal and denouncing proprietary GIS vendors. If a company plays by the
>>> rules of science, there is nothing wrong about that company publishing a
>>> scientific book. I.e. almost all book publishers are commercial companies
>>> with interests somehow and somewhere.
>>>
>>> You need to “attack” scientific “wrong doing” by that particular company in
>>> conducting the editing and publication of that book. Publishing books if
>>> done correctly is not wrong, even by a vendor with vested interests. But if
>>> you witness, for example, that submissions using open source GIS solutions
>>> are disadvantaged against the submissions using products of the proprietary
>>> GIS vendor publishing the book, that would be the point to raise and attack.
>>>
>>> Second, better write about how it should be done to avoid this negative
>>> “Fake Science” things from happening. Here the idea of Open Science and
>>> Reproducible Science is key, i.e. the most openness and transparency
>>> possible. We just need more transparency in science and also in the whole
>>> process of editing/reviewing and publishing a book. And this is where OSGeo
>>> can contribute. Basically, real reproducible and open science is not
>>> 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations

[Peter Baumann]

Dear Maria,

On 25.07.2018 10:06, María Arias de Reyna wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Peter Baumann  > wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
>
> while I could not agree more to what you say there is one point to
> disagree with:
>
>
> On 24.07.2018 18:43, Christian Willmes wrote:
>>
>> Dear Suchith,
>>
>> I understand your point, and I also support your views on this, but this
>> is from my perspective a too personal/particular issue, as to have it as
>> an "OSGeo open letter". Also, because this is more of an ICA and not so
>> much an OSGeo issue, I think.
>>
>> First, I would keep it more general. You address a particular issue (UN
>> SDG book published by esri), and also some personal background (this
>> should not matter to the addressed subject). I would recommend you keep
>> it from being personal and denouncing proprietary GIS vendors. If a
>> company plays by the rules of science, there is nothing wrong about that
>> company publishing a scientific book. I.e. almost all book publishers are
>> commercial companies with interests somehow and somewhere.
>>
>> You need to “attack” scientific “wrong doing” by that particular company
>> in conducting the editing and publication of that book. Publishing books
>> if done correctly is not wrong, even by a vendor with vested interests.
>> But if you witness, for example, that submissions using open source GIS
>> solutions are disadvantaged against the submissions using products of the
>> proprietary GIS vendor publishing the book, that would be the point to
>> raise and attack.
>>
>> Second, better write about how it should be done to avoid this negative
>> “Fake Science” things from happening. Here the idea of Open Science and
>> Reproducible Science is key, i.e. the most openness and transparency
>> possible. We just need more transparency in science and also in the whole
>> process of editing/reviewing and publishing a book. And this is where
>> OSGeo can contribute. Basically, real reproducible and open science is
>> not possible without open source software. If you can’t see how something
>> is implemented, you can not really reproduce the results.
>>
>
> No. Open science and open source software are fundamentally different
> things. For example, if you derive stats from some data set via SQL it
> does not matter whether it comes from open-source PostgreSQL or from
> proprietary Oracle. Because the SQL language in its syntax and semantics
> is standardized, and it is assured thereby that both systems will deliver
> the same results. So standards actually are a prerequisite for science to
> be comparable, but surely not open source.
>
>
>
> If you use proprietary products and can't verify that the result is not due to
> a bug (even an intended bug ), you are missing an important step on
> verifiability. Open Source (as in "I can see the code") is an important piece
> of open science.

that's not what software engineers would do normally. If you feel a tool has a
bug you'd
- try to isolate through a minimal failing example
- possibly try with another tool (in the case of PostgreSQL, maybe try MariaDB)
for verification
- definitely contact the support list (in the case of PostgreSQL, Regina & 
friends)

Unless it is some simple scripting issue you (that is: I) normally don't stand a
chance to dive into the code. Honestly, would we / could we spot a bug in the
source code for executing an index-only plan of a distributed SQL query, after
heuristic and cost-based optimizers have done their work? I could not.

Good software engineering practice is to work specification-based, not by trying
to hack yourself into code.

And both of that _can_ work well with both open-source and proprietary tools.
Again, SQL is the shining example: a good specification says it all.

BTW, why do you raise, on the fly, the accusation that there may be "intended
bugs"? Any evidence for this? I'd like to learn more about such cases.

cheers,
Peter





>
>
> ___
> GeoForAll mailing list
> geofor...@lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall

-- 
Dr. Peter Baumann
 - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen
   www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann
   mail: p.baum...@jacobs-university.de
   tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178
 - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793)
   www.rasdaman.com, mail: baum...@rasdaman.com
   tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882
"Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis 
dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec 
preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083)


___
Discuss mailing list

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations

[Suchith Anand]

Hi Antony,


I am only a ICA volunteer and  my only request was for open and transparent 
discussions on the community book project . I just do not understand what is 
the problem with that request? When I  came to know that the book publisher etc 
was decided already without any open discussions or information on the criteria 
of selection etc, I had to inform GeoForAll colleagues as they all contributed 
to this SDG initiative in good faith and atleast deserve to be kept updated. I 
cannot keep silence on this as then I will be letting down the GeoForAll 
colleagues who contributed to this initiative in good faith. If you think, they 
don’t even deserve to be kept informed, it is very sad. GeoForAll is an open 
community and we encourage open discussions and ideas sharing on all all geo 
topics that has relevance.


ICA is my community also and I worked for 15 years volunteering for it and 
still doing. So I feel sad and disappointed to see the lack of transparency and 
conflicts of interest issues that we are seeing now . I am available for any 
help any time for any ICA colleagues. Just email me.  I was met with hostility 
from the start when I asked for open and transparent discussions for this 
community book project.  I do not know the background of this book project and 
I have no influence in any aspects of this  project. I was just telling my 
opinion that as I understood it was a community book project, please allow for 
open and transparent discussions. I am happy to contact  Menno-Jan on this 
again and request him  to please consider allowing  open and transparent 
discussions.


The Open Letter is for raising awareness of the importance of open and 
transparent decision making at all levels in any Scientific Association (it is 
not going to be focussed on ICA or SDG book) . Though this SDG book was the 
reason which made me think of this. It is not only affecting ICA. This problem 
can happen to another Scientific Organisation in the future. If they are aware 
of it, they will take steps and have strong frameworks for minimising “conflict 
of interest” . My concern was not with a specific issue but on the wider 
principle of  open and transparent decision making in Scientific associations. 
Hence the lessons learnt can be summarised as an Open Letter (it is not going 
to focussed on ICA or SDG book) , so we all can learn and improve. Otherwise 
these mistakes will keep happening in the future.


Everyone makes mistakes and it takes courage to acknowledge and correct the 
mistakes .Compassion and forgiveness are important values .  I have great 
respect to all ICA colleagues. We might have difference in opinions on some 
issues and having free and open discussions is in my humble opinion the best 
way to learn each others perspectives and find best solutions to move forward.


So let us not focus on past mistakes but look at ideas on how we can strengthen 
the open and transparent decision making process and frameworks for Scholarly 
publications of Scientific Associations in the future. Thank you for your 
kindness to listen to my concerns.



Best wishes,


Suchith




From: GeoForAll  on behalf of Robinson, 
Anthony C 
Sent: 25 July 2018 16:09
To: Suchith Anand; Christian Willmes; geofor...@lists.osgeo.org; OSGeo 
Discussions
Subject: Re: [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting 
independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific 
Associations


Suchith,



I don’t speak on behalf of ICA – you need to engage directly with ICA 
leadership (and not simply by broadcasting to a mailing list – that’s not how 
dialog works). I am also not comfortable with my name being wrapped into your 
open letter in this manner. You’re engaging in mostly a one-sided conversation 
here and using everything you can to create a story that fits what you believe. 
It’s strange and aggressive. Whether or not it’s your intention, you are coming 
across as angry and accusatory – it’s an approach that is almost guaranteed to 
result in others ignoring your arguments.



You are making a ton of assumptions about your influence over the ICA book 
project, it’s initial intentions, etc… You need Menno-Jan and others in ICA 
leadership to provide input, if they choose to do so (and they may very well 
not choose to do so). In my view you are trying hard to craft an enemy that you 
can knock down, and I can’t for the life of me understand why your target is a 
community of cartographers. You have waited over a year for information that 
you were never promised in the first place – ICA did not make an agreement with 
you to do everything you want of them. You can be upset about how ICA is 
governed, but it’s bizarre to claim that ICA owes you anything.



You’re welcome to your opinion, but I wonder if everyone who has signed up to 
be a Geo4All lab shares your enthusiasm for this effort at this time. Has 
Geo4All finished everything else it 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations

[Suchith Anand]

Hi Christian,


I will also connect you  to Prof. Michael P. Peterson  (University of Nebraska 
at Omaha, USA) so you can get more inputs and ideas . Michael is a 
distinguished academic . He is currently Chief Editor of one of the  GIS 
journals  . He also served as chair of the ICA’s publications committee from 
2011-2015 and he helped start many of the journals of ICA.


Michael  emailed me few weeks back alerting me to lot of low quality and 
dubious submissions that his journal (it is not an ICA journal)  is receiving . 
They all were coming from  a particular country and asked for my advice . 
Though he did not provide me details, I trust his experience and wisdom .  I 
respect his conscience and courage to look into the problem (rather than 
ignoring it like many) . I think this is a problem that many Chief editors of 
journals today are facing.


Even if the Chief Editors can’t share individual paper details , my suggestion 
is that they all need to share summary data and statistics to help us 
understand the scale of the problem. Only Chief Editors of journals can do this 
as only they will have full picture. Individual reviewers may be aware of the 
problem but they  do not have full picture. We also need all the Scientific 
Associations to take strong stand on this and put in a unified action plan.


In my humble opinion, Scientific Associations/Organisations are the guardians 
of Science. Hence my plea to all of them to please ensure they all take steps 
to protect the integrity of Science.  They can only do this if they themselves 
put in strong structures for openness and transparency in decision making at 
all levels.


I am hoping all Scientific Associations will  join forces to find solution to 
this as it is global problem.  As I clearly told this is not an ICA problem or 
any vendor problem or one organisation problem. It is a global problem and 
everyone (Scientific organisations, academics, vendors, publishers, 
governments) need to join forces to help find solution . I am hoping  all 
Scientific Organisations will work on an action plan to help on this.


Best wishes,


Suchith




From: Discuss  on behalf of Suchith Anand 

Sent: 25 July 2018 10:34
To: Christian Willmes; geofor...@lists.osgeo.org; OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance 
to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of 
Scientific Associations


Thank you Christian for your inputs and offer of help in  articulate this 
issue. Greatly appreciated.


I think it is an unintentional mistake and I am very grateful that ICA 
colleagues have listened to my concerns. Though I don’t know any details, I 
understand from Anthony’s mail last week that ICA is not proceeding with  
vendor GIS press for this publication. I hope ICA will have open and 
transparent discussions based on clear policy frameworks  in selecting 
whichever new book publisher and have clear guidelines in the future.


It is the duty of the Scientific Organisations to have clear policies and 
guidelines on selecting publishers , have open and transparent  decision making 
, ensure  free and open discussions with the community etc. If so, this clear 
conflict of interest issue would not have happened in the first place. My 
concern is  with the lack of openness in decision making process of selecting 
publishers for book projects etc.  I have waited over an year to get even any 
small  information on this .


I think it is important to give more time to get more ideas/inputs from the 
community on how we can rectify this problem for the future. I have put three 
suggestions . There may be more ideas.  So you and other colleagues are welcome 
to bring more ideas/inputs.


Feel free to create a shared document with your text/inputs . We can aim to 
give three months (Oct 2018) to help refine ideas , get inputs from all on what 
are the best practices for all Scientific associations to help us draft the 
Open Letter. We need to learn from this and not keep repeating these mistakes 
in the future. Hence these open discussions are aimed at learning and sharing 
ideas for good practices for all Scientific associations /Organisations in the 
future.


Best wishes,


Suchith



From: Christian Willmes 
Sent: 25 July 2018 07:31
To: Suchith Anand; geofor...@lists.osgeo.org; OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting 
independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific 
Associations


Dear Suchith,

I agree with you on the matter, that publishing a book in context of United 
Nations initiative by esri is bad. I would also support to offiicialy 
articulate this somehow.
But the case you address was solved. As I understand, esri is no longer 
considered as the publisher for the book?
I also think, that there might be a big conflict of interest, if 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations

[Suchith Anand]

Thank you Christian for your inputs and offer of help in  articulate this 
issue. Greatly appreciated.


I think it is an unintentional mistake and I am very grateful that ICA 
colleagues have listened to my concerns. Though I don’t know any details, I 
understand from Anthony’s mail last week that ICA is not proceeding with  
vendor GIS press for this publication. I hope ICA will have open and 
transparent discussions based on clear policy frameworks  in selecting 
whichever new book publisher and have clear guidelines in the future.


It is the duty of the Scientific Organisations to have clear policies and 
guidelines on selecting publishers , have open and transparent  decision making 
, ensure  free and open discussions with the community etc. If so, this clear 
conflict of interest issue would not have happened in the first place. My 
concern is  with the lack of openness in decision making process of selecting 
publishers for book projects etc.  I have waited over an year to get even any 
small  information on this .


I think it is important to give more time to get more ideas/inputs from the 
community on how we can rectify this problem for the future. I have put three 
suggestions . There may be more ideas.  So you and other colleagues are welcome 
to bring more ideas/inputs.


Feel free to create a shared document with your text/inputs . We can aim to 
give three months (Oct 2018) to help refine ideas , get inputs from all on what 
are the best practices for all Scientific associations to help us draft the 
Open Letter. We need to learn from this and not keep repeating these mistakes 
in the future. Hence these open discussions are aimed at learning and sharing 
ideas for good practices for all Scientific associations /Organisations in the 
future.


Best wishes,


Suchith



From: Christian Willmes 
Sent: 25 July 2018 07:31
To: Suchith Anand; geofor...@lists.osgeo.org; OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting 
independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific 
Associations


Dear Suchith,

I agree with you on the matter, that publishing a book in context of United 
Nations initiative by esri is bad. I would also support to offiicialy 
articulate this somehow.
But the case you address was solved. As I understand, esri is no longer 
considered as the publisher for the book?
I also think, that there might be a big conflict of interest, if esri publishes 
a UN SDG book. But intil that is proven by some wrong doing from esri during 
the editing and publication process, we are talking not about facts. And as far 
as I know they didn't published an UN related book yet? Maybe ICA and Prof. 
Kraak understood this problem, after you raised your concerns about this issue 
last year. So, thank you very much for your caring about this issue a year ago, 
and as it seems you already won the battle!

What I see now, is at most a policy issue within ICA, that they may need to 
open up the process for deciding for a publisher of a book project, but I am 
not even sure about that, because they seem to have already a policy for that 
case in place?

Best regards,
Christian

Am 24.07.2018 um 22:51 schrieb Suchith Anand:

Dear Christian,


Thank you for you mail and inputs. This letter is draft and I welcome inputs 
from you and everyone to refine it.  I fully agree with you that we just need 
more transparency in science and also in the whole process of editing/reviewing 
and publishing a book.


I am happy to make the edits/changes needed that you suggested and I will 
request your help on this. I have provided all information that I have on this 
book project that I am aware of. I just do not know the details (what was the 
process of selecting the publisher, criteria etc).  If you are able to get 
details on this and share with the community, it will be very helpful. I did my 
best to get more information on the publisher decision process etc . For  some 
strange  reason, there was no openness in the whole process which is the main 
concern. So if there is no openness and transparency even in this then how do 
you think we can expect transparency in editing/reviewing process. I 
respectfully disagree with you that any GIS vendor if they are also running 
their  publication press, then they have no conflict of interest.


 It is the duty of scientific association to ensure there is transparency in 
science. Even ICA’s publication policy for conference proceedings  does not 
mention any GIS vendor press . Why?  Please see

https://icaci.org/ica-publications-and-publication-policy-first-publication-volume-is-online/

All scholarly publications (edited books, journals, conference proceedings) 
should follow similar guidelines.  So I am very confused why and how a GIS 
vendor press was planned for this community book project.


I highlighted the global problem of increase in low quality submissions  and it 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations

[Christian Willmes]

Hi Peter,


good point! And fair enough for your example on SQL which is an open 
standard and thus reproducible in theory and practice. My Point is more 
general, although it may not be 100% thought through yet, so comments 
are welcome. My argumetation on this is as follows:



Scientific publications that deal for example with a GIS analysis on a 
specific topic, should be published in a way, that any reader of that 
study can practically reproduce its analysis and its results.



From my point of view, for > 90% of publications in the GIS domain, 
this is not the case yet, either caused by constraints in data 
availability or software availability, or mostly by just the lack of 
precise documentation and citation of the data sources and the conduct 
of the processing workflow of the study. Hardware constraints are also a 
thing, but I think this should not be the concern of the scientist, to 
ensure his/her research is open and transparent and in practice and 
theory reproducible.


Software wise, it would be from my point of view plain unscientific, if 
the results in the publication are produced with a proprietary ("point 
and click" without detailed documentation of processing steps taken) 
software, and additionally are not reproducible without a license of 
that software. Thus I would demand, to be able to label something Open 
Science or reproducible Science, access to the software (or at least 
precise definitions of how it is implemented, for example the source 
code) for reproducing the results must be a given. For example a script 
executing all the commands for the analysis workflow conducted, would do 
this precisely. If the script uses closed software, this would be less 
open compared to a script that uses open software.



But in the end I am sure, that these kinds of reproducible research 
publications, will end up using open source or at least open access 
(free for scientific use) software, because it will just generate more 
impact, if also Scientists with less access to expensive software can 
also built upon this research results and cite it accordingly...



Think also about the positive feedback from science funding for 
development of open software instead of paying for licenses, researchers 
would pay programmers or companies that offer according programming 
solutions to develop software for their scientific needs and interests. 
The aspect that this open approach adheres also better to the 
understanding of how science works or should work in general, is also an 
important point.



Best regards,
Christian


Am 25.07.2018 um 09:57 schrieb Peter Baumann:


Hi Christian,


while I could not agree more to what you say there is one point to 
disagree with:



On 24.07.2018 18:43, Christian Willmes wrote:


Dear Suchith,

I understand your point, and I also support your views on this, but 
this is from my perspective a too personal/particular issue, as to 
have it as an "OSGeo open letter". Also, because this is more of an 
ICA and not so much an OSGeo issue, I think.


First, I would keep it more general. You address a particular issue 
(UN SDG book published by esri), and also some personal background 
(this should not matter to the addressed subject). I would recommend 
you keep it from being personal and denouncing proprietary GIS 
vendors. If a company plays by the rules of science, there is nothing 
wrong about that company publishing a scientific book. I.e. almost 
all book publishers are commercial companies with interests somehow 
and somewhere.


You need to “attack” scientific “wrong doing” by that particular 
company in conducting the editing and publication of that book. 
Publishing books if done correctly is not wrong, even by a vendor 
with vested interests. But if you witness, for example, that 
submissions using open source GIS solutions are disadvantaged against 
the submissions using products of the proprietary GIS vendor 
publishing the book, that would be the point to raise and attack.


Second, better write about how it should be done to avoid this 
negative “Fake Science” things from happening. Here the idea of Open 
Science and Reproducible Science is key, i.e. the most openness and 
transparency possible. We just need more transparency in science and 
also in the whole process of editing/reviewing and publishing a book. 
And this is where OSGeo can contribute. Basically, real reproducible 
and open science is not possible without open source software. If you 
can’t see how something is implemented, you can not really reproduce 
the results.




No. Open science and open source software are fundamentally different 
things. For example, if you derive stats from some data set via SQL it 
does not matter whether it comes from open-source PostgreSQL or from 
proprietary Oracle. Because the SQL language in its syntax and 
semantics is standardized, and it is assured thereby that both systems 
will deliver the same results. So standards actually are a 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations

[María Arias de Reyna]

On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Peter Baumann <
p.baum...@jacobs-university.de> wrote:

> Hi Christian,
>
>
> while I could not agree more to what you say there is one point to
> disagree with:
>
> On 24.07.2018 18:43, Christian Willmes wrote:
>
> Dear Suchith,
>
> I understand your point, and I also support your views on this, but this
> is from my perspective a too personal/particular issue, as to have it as an
> "OSGeo open letter". Also, because this is more of an ICA and not so much
> an OSGeo issue, I think.
>
> First, I would keep it more general. You address a particular issue (UN
> SDG book published by esri), and also some personal background (this should
> not matter to the addressed subject). I would recommend you keep it from
> being personal and denouncing proprietary GIS vendors. If a company plays
> by the rules of science, there is nothing wrong about that company
> publishing a scientific book. I.e. almost all book publishers are
> commercial companies with interests somehow and somewhere.
>
> You need to “attack” scientific “wrong doing” by that particular company
> in conducting the editing and publication of that book. Publishing books if
> done correctly is not wrong, even by a vendor with vested interests. But if
> you witness, for example, that submissions using open source GIS solutions
> are disadvantaged against the submissions using products of the proprietary
> GIS vendor publishing the book, that would be the point to raise and attack.
>
> Second, better write about how it should be done to avoid this negative
> “Fake Science” things from happening. Here the idea of Open Science and
> Reproducible Science is key, i.e. the most openness and transparency
> possible. We just need more transparency in science and also in the whole
> process of editing/reviewing and publishing a book. And this is where OSGeo
> can contribute. Basically, real reproducible and open science is not
> possible without open source software. If you can’t see how something is
> implemented, you can not really reproduce the results.
>
>
> No. Open science and open source software are fundamentally different
> things. For example, if you derive stats from some data set via SQL it does
> not matter whether it comes from open-source PostgreSQL or from proprietary
> Oracle. Because the SQL language in its syntax and semantics is
> standardized, and it is assured thereby that both systems will deliver the
> same results. So standards actually are a prerequisite for science to be
> comparable, but surely not open source.
>


If you use proprietary products and can't verify that the result is not due
to a bug (even an intended bug ), you are missing an important step on
verifiability. Open Source (as in "I can see the code") is an important
piece of open science.
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.osgeo.org
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations

[Peter Baumann]

Hi Christian,


while I could not agree more to what you say there is one point to disagree 
with:


On 24.07.2018 18:43, Christian Willmes wrote:
>
> Dear Suchith,
>
> I understand your point, and I also support your views on this, but this is
> from my perspective a too personal/particular issue, as to have it as an
> "OSGeo open letter". Also, because this is more of an ICA and not so much an
> OSGeo issue, I think.
>
> First, I would keep it more general. You address a particular issue (UN SDG
> book published by esri), and also some personal background (this should not
> matter to the addressed subject). I would recommend you keep it from being
> personal and denouncing proprietary GIS vendors. If a company plays by the
> rules of science, there is nothing wrong about that company publishing a
> scientific book. I.e. almost all book publishers are commercial companies with
> interests somehow and somewhere.
>
> You need to “attack” scientific “wrong doing” by that particular company in
> conducting the editing and publication of that book. Publishing books if done
> correctly is not wrong, even by a vendor with vested interests. But if you
> witness, for example, that submissions using open source GIS solutions are
> disadvantaged against the submissions using products of the proprietary GIS
> vendor publishing the book, that would be the point to raise and attack.
>
> Second, better write about how it should be done to avoid this negative “Fake
> Science” things from happening. Here the idea of Open Science and Reproducible
> Science is key, i.e. the most openness and transparency possible. We just need
> more transparency in science and also in the whole process of
> editing/reviewing and publishing a book. And this is where OSGeo can
> contribute. Basically, real reproducible and open science is not possible
> without open source software. If you can’t see how something is implemented,
> you can not really reproduce the results.
>

No. Open science and open source software are fundamentally different things.
For example, if you derive stats from some data set via SQL it does not matter
whether it comes from open-source PostgreSQL or from proprietary Oracle. Because
the SQL language in its syntax and semantics is standardized, and it is assured
thereby that both systems will deliver the same results. So standards actually
are a prerequisite for science to be comparable, but surely not open source.

my 2 cents,
Peter

>
> Third, if you accuse someone of “Fake Science” please make sure to offer
> evidence about this particular misconduct. If you fail to do so, you are
> creating “fake news” yourself. Sorry, no offense at you personally, but I
> think its not a good idea to publish this letter in OSGeo's or GeoForAll's
> name. At least not with these accusations or even notion of "Fake Science" in 
> it.
>
>
> To be clear, I share your view that it is bad, if esri would publish a book
> written by scientists in the context of a United Nations initiative to maybe
> only advertise its own product, but until any misconduct is proven, you can't
> accuse esri or ICA of "Fake Science".
>
>
> Best regards,
> Christian
>
>
> Am 24.07.2018 um 11:53 schrieb Suchith Anand:
>>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>>
>>
>> I have prepared a draft letter with my ideas/suggestions .I am just a
>> volunteer and I feel sad that  that I have to raise this issue through an
>> open letter.  But if I remain silent on this , I will be indirectly
>> supporting the degrading of  independent peer review frameworks  for
>> Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations.
>>
>>
>> It is the fundamental duty of all Officers of Scientific
>> Associations/Organisations  to always take steps to guard and protect
>> independent peer review frameworks  for Scholarly publications of Scientific
>> Associations. I am hopeful and confident that that they all will do this for
>> the future.
>>
>>
>> I am not a native English speaker, so please help refine this  letter
>> correctly. I want us to look at the future not focus on mistakes made in past
>> . Some mistakes have been made and I understand that this is corrected. We
>> are all human , so we all make mistakes  . So let us not focus on past
>> mistakes but look at ideas on how we can strengthen the independent peer
>> review frameworks  for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations in
>> the future.
>>
>>
>> The International Cartographic Association (ICA) is my organisation for
>> which  I have volunteered for the last 15 years and continuing . I have great
>> respect for everyone in this great global community . The SDG book is a
>> community effort (not any individual’s book project) . I have requested from
>> the start (as soon as I came to know) for openness and transparency in
>> decision making for selecting the publisher. esp. as this book is on UN SDG .
>> I understand that ICA has now corrected the mistake . Everyone makes mistakes
>> and it takes courage to acknowledge and 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations

[Christian Willmes]

Dear Suchith,

I agree with you on the matter, that publishing a book in context of 
United Nations initiative by esri is bad. I would also support to 
offiicialy articulate this somehow.
But the case you address was solved. As I understand, esri is no longer 
considered as the publisher for the book?
I also think, that there might be a big conflict of interest, if esri 
publishes a UN SDG book. But intil that is proven by some wrong doing 
from esri during the editing and publication process, we are talking not 
about facts. And as far as I know they didn't published an UN related 
book yet? Maybe ICA and Prof. Kraak understood this problem, after you 
raised your concerns about this issue last year. So, thank you very much 
for your caring about this issue a year ago, and as it seems you already 
won the battle!


What I see now, is at most a policy issue within ICA, that they may need 
to open up the process for deciding for a publisher of a book project, 
but I am not even sure about that, because they seem to have already a 
policy for that case in place?


Best regards,
Christian


Am 24.07.2018 um 22:51 schrieb Suchith Anand:


Dear Christian,


Thank you for you mail and inputs. This letter is draft and I welcome 
inputs from you and everyone to refine it.I fully agree with you that 
we just need more transparency in science and also in the whole 
process of editing/reviewing and publishing a book.



I am happy to make the edits/changes needed that you suggested and I 
will request your help on this. I have provided all information that I 
have on this book project that I am aware of. I just do not know the 
details (what was the process of selecting the publisher, criteria 
etc).If you are able to get details on this and share with the 
community, it will be very helpful. I did my best to get more 
information on the publisher decision process etc . Forsome 
strangereason, there was no openness in the whole process which is the 
main concern. So if there is no openness and transparency even in this 
then how do you think we can expect transparency in editing/reviewing 
process. I respectfully disagree with you that any GIS vendor if they 
are also running theirpublication press, then they have no conflict of 
interest.



It is the duty of scientific association to ensure there is 
transparency in science. Even ICA’s publication policy for conference 
proceedingsdoes not mention any GIS vendor press . Why?  Please see


https://icaci.org/ica-publications-and-publication-policy-first-publication-volume-is-online/

All scholarly publications (edited books, journals, conference 
proceedings) should follow similar guidelines.So I am very confused 
why and how a GIS vendor press was planned for this community book 
project.



I highlighted the global problem of increase in low quality 
submissionsand it is not an ICA problem or any Vendor problem or any 
single organisation problem.Hence it is important that we are all very 
vigilant and take steps to protect the integrity of independent peer 
review frameworksfor Scholarly publications of Scientific 
Associations. If anyScientific Associations themselves are not open 
and transparent in their decision making, then how can theyensure 
independent peer review frameworksfor Scholarly publications!



I want to make it clear that I am not an author or coauthor on any 
articles submitted to this book project. So I do not have any personal 
conflict of interest in this. GeoForAll colleagues contributed for 
this book project in good faith. I did work to get GeoForAll 
colleagues to support and contribute for this book project. So I have 
a moral responsibility to make sure they are provided as much 
information and updates on this.I have no issue if the GIS vendor 
publication press for this community book was selected by an open, 
transparent process.



I want us to look at the future not focus on mistakes made in past . 
Some mistakes have been made and I understand that this is corrected. 
We are all human , so we all make mistakes  So let us not focus on 
past mistakes but look at ideas on how we can strengthen the 
independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of 
Scientific Associations in the future.



I have worked with many properitaryGIS vendors and I have 
great respect for all of them and always welcomed them.I have raised 
my concern with someopen source vendors also if I find any thing that 
undermines openness.I am the view that both open and properitary 
systems have an important place and need to work together  . We are 
all part of a big ecosystem all working for Geo.   I  believe in open 
discussions to help find better understanding.  For me,  Openness 
means being open to different perspectives ,ideas, viewpoints, 
cultures  and learning and improving to be a better human every day...




Best wishes,


Suchith





*From:* GeoForAll  on behalf 

Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations

[Suchith Anand]

Dear Christian,


Thank you for you mail and inputs. This letter is draft and I welcome inputs 
from you and everyone to refine it.  I fully agree with you that we just need 
more transparency in science and also in the whole process of editing/reviewing 
and publishing a book.


I am happy to make the edits/changes needed that you suggested and I will 
request your help on this. I have provided all information that I have on this 
book project that I am aware of. I just do not know the details (what was the 
process of selecting the publisher, criteria etc).  If you are able to get 
details on this and share with the community, it will be very helpful. I did my 
best to get more information on the publisher decision process etc . For  some 
strange  reason, there was no openness in the whole process which is the main 
concern. So if there is no openness and transparency even in this then how do 
you think we can expect transparency in editing/reviewing process. I 
respectfully disagree with you that any GIS vendor if they are also running 
their  publication press, then they have no conflict of interest.


 It is the duty of scientific association to ensure there is transparency in 
science. Even ICA’s publication policy for conference proceedings  does not 
mention any GIS vendor press . Why?  Please see

https://icaci.org/ica-publications-and-publication-policy-first-publication-volume-is-online/

All scholarly publications (edited books, journals, conference proceedings) 
should follow similar guidelines.  So I am very confused why and how a GIS 
vendor press was planned for this community book project.


I highlighted the global problem of increase in low quality submissions  and it 
is not an ICA problem or any Vendor problem or any single organisation problem. 
   Hence it is important that we are all very vigilant and take steps to 
protect the integrity of independent peer review frameworks  for Scholarly 
publications of Scientific Associations. If any  Scientific Associations 
themselves are not open and transparent in their decision making, then how can 
they  ensure independent peer review frameworks  for Scholarly publications!


I want to make it clear that I am not an author or coauthor on any articles 
submitted to this book project. So I do not have any personal conflict of 
interest in this. GeoForAll colleagues contributed for this book project in 
good faith. I did work to get GeoForAll colleagues to support and contribute 
for this book project. So I have a moral responsibility to make sure they are 
provided as much information and updates on this.  I have no issue if the GIS 
vendor publication press for this community book was selected by an open, 
transparent process.


I want us to look at the future not focus on mistakes made in past . Some 
mistakes have been made and I understand that this is corrected. We are all 
human , so we all make mistakes  So let us not focus on past mistakes but look 
at ideas on how we can strengthen the independent peer review frameworks  for 
Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations in the future.


I have worked with many properitary  GIS vendors and I have great respect for 
all of them and always welcomed them.  I have raised my concern with some  open 
source vendors also if I find any thing that undermines openness.  I am the 
view that both open and properitary systems have an important place and need to 
work together  . We are all part of a big ecosystem all working for Geo.   I  
believe in  open discussions to help find better understanding.  For me,  
Openness means being open to different perspectives ,ideas, viewpoints, 
cultures  and learning and improving to be a better human every day...



Best wishes,


Suchith




From: GeoForAll  on behalf of Christian 
Willmes 
Sent: 24 July 2018 17:43
To: geofor...@lists.osgeo.org; OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [Geo4All] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting 
independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific 
Associations


Dear Suchith,

I understand your point, and I also support your views on this, but this is 
from my perspective a too personal/particular issue, as to have it as an "OSGeo 
open letter". Also, because this is more of an ICA and not so much an OSGeo 
issue, I think.

First, I would keep it more general. You address a particular issue (UN SDG 
book published by esri), and also some personal background (this should not 
matter to the addressed subject). I would recommend you keep it from being 
personal and denouncing proprietary GIS vendors. If a company plays by the 
rules of science, there is nothing wrong about that company publishing a 
scientific book. I.e. almost all book publishers are commercial companies with 
interests somehow and somewhere.

You need to “attack” scientific “wrong doing” by that particular company in 
conducting the editing and publication of that book. Publishing