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

This all sounds good but I do not see it working as an approach to conflict resolution. That people with fundamental disagreements can agree on general principles does nothing to resolve those disagreements. For example, librarians want lower costs but publishers do not want reduced revenues.

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

I beg to differ, David. Take a look at the paper’s references section for a list of suggested reading on this approach. Also take a look at agreements like the Columbia River Treaty , which aren’t based on “divide

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

My point is there may well be no such actions. Policy is normally a realm of compromise, where no one gets what they want, not a matter of finding common ground. Seeking common ground strikes me as an odd model for conflict resolution. David > On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:43 PM, Hinchliffe, Lisa W

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

Most is annex material  But I’ll send you the summary link when it’s available (hopefully next week). In the interim, the Cliff Notes version is that the entire scholarly communication community, large and small, for-profit and non-profit recognizes many of the same fundamental interests

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

Well, David, yes - that's exactly what Plan A calls for ... engaging in inquiry to find those actions. -- Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, Illinois 61801

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

In support to Sandy's second point, It is striking how the “common ground” idea overlooks the dialectical opposition between ends and means: * The objective of a “for profit publisher” is, as the name says it, to make profits by the means of publishing; * Whereas a “not for profit”

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

Yes, of course, but presumably we are looking for actionable common ground, not just shared beliefs. David > On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Hinchliffe, Lisa W wrote: > > Common ground between those two appears to me to be the belief that there > should be scholarly journals. (Which, of course,

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

Glen, all. You will never get everyone in the world to agree about anything. There are still people who don’t agree that climate change is real. But that should not stop us from doing what is right and is now, so obviously, a moral imperative. I’m not going to get into a protracted

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

Common ground between those two appears to me to be the belief that there should be scholarly journals. (Which, of course, is not a view that everyone holds. But ... even then, I think there is common ground that "scholarly communication is a worthwhile activity" ). -- Lisa Janicke

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

Glenn, It is 107 pages! In the interim, which may be long, here is a simple example. There is a sizable school of thought that says journals should not be published by commercial (for profit) publishers. Then there are the commercial publishers, who publish a sizable fraction of the journals.

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

Hi Kathleen, I wish you well with your work and am interested in helping. But if I may, I’d like to reply to two points in your email. The first is with regard to “ambition.” I think it’s fair to say that both of these efforts are on the audacious end of the ambition scale. Our view,

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

Hi Richard, I didn’t notice your question about cOAlition S overlap with COAR. There is probably some small overlap in institutional membership, but most of the COAR members are not funders and cOAlition S members generally are funders. That said, COAR and cOAlition S are working together in

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

Hi David, I encourage you to read the paper and let me know what you think (on-list or direct): http://plan-a.world/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/OSI-policy-perspective-2-final.pdf. I apologize for the length of this---the summary version hasn’t been published yet. Best, Glenn

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

I suspect there are lots of limits to common ground. In fact the hypothesis that there is significant common ground strikes me as untested, much less proven, especially if one includes the more radical positions. David Wojick > On Apr 20, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray wrote: > > I

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

Hi Richard, The sums are indeed vanishingly small---US$5000 in late 2019, and only after lots of begging on my part  Commercial publishers are, as far as I can tell, in a serious “hunkering down” mode at the moment, at least with regard to supporting efforts like OSI that are trying to

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

I also wish that Kathleen had answered this part of my question: “How many members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S?" There is a public list of COAR members and a public list of signatories to Plan S. I would have thought that if somebody want to know the level of overlap they could

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

I have two brief comments to add to this thread. 1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that automatic translation, however imperfect, could be satisfactory for certain scholarly purposes but not others. We don;t always need an elegant translation to get the gist of what is being

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

-- Forwarded message - From: Heather Morrison Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 16:04 Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action To: ACRL Scholarly Communication Discussion List Regarding Richard's question about the adequacy of

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

Hi Kathleen, Richard, Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. As you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today (http://plan-a.world). Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action plan, representing five years of deep thinking that OSI

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

Hello Richard, Yes, indeed, you are right, the coordinated actions required for bibliodiversity are similar to the efforts needed to deal with the covid19 pandemic. For your second question, the way I am envisioning the collaborations taking place is as follows: much of the discussions