This all sounds good but I do not see it working as an approach to conflict resolution. That people with fundamental disagreements can agree on general principles does nothing to resolve those disagreements. For example, librarians want lower costs but publishers do not want reduced revenues.
David > On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:46 PM, Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > wrote: > > Most is annex material 😊 But I’ll send you the summary link when it’s > available (hopefully next week). > > In the interim, the Cliff Notes version is that the entire scholarly > communication community, large and small, for-profit and non-profit > recognizes many of the same fundamental interests and concerns about open, > such as lowering costs and improving global access; and the importance of > many of the same connected issues in this space such as impact factors and > the culture of communication in academia. This community also shares a deep, > common commitment to improving the future of research, and improving the > contribution of research to society. > > If all this still isn’t enough for you, read the paper (or skim it)---there’s > a lot more. The key isn’t to find and focus on common ground on solutions > right out of the gate (and inevitably end up arguing with each other about > whose solution is best). It’s to recognize our common interests and concerns > first, and only then start building out solutions and options, together. > We’ve been skipping a necessary step in this process for far too long. > > Best, > > Glenn > > > Glenn Hampson > Executive Director > Science Communication Institute (SCI) > Program Director > Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) > <image003.jpg> > > From: David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 12:05 PM > To: Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray <s...@psu.edu>; Kathleen Shearer > <m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>; <richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> > <richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>; <scholc...@lists.ala.org> > <scholc...@lists.ala.org>; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > <goal@eprints.org> > Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly > Communications: A Call for Action > > Glenn, > > It is 107 pages! In the interim, which may be long, here is a simple example. > There is a sizable school of thought that says journals should not be > published by commercial (for profit) publishers. Then there are the > commercial publishers, who publish a sizable fraction of the journals. > > What is the common ground between these two large groups? > > David > > On Apr 20, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > wrote: > > Hi David, > > I encourage you to read the paper and let me know what you think (on-list or > direct): > http://plan-a.world/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/OSI-policy-perspective-2-final.pdf. > I apologize for the length of this---the summary version hasn’t been > published yet. > > Best, > > Glenn > > Glenn Hampson > Executive Director > Science Communication Institute (SCI) > Program Director > Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) > <image004.jpg> > > > > From: David Wojick <dwoj...@craigellachie.us> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM > To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray <s...@psu.edu> > Cc: 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>; Glenn Hampson > <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly > Communications: A Call for Action > > I suspect there are lots of limits to common ground. In fact the hypothesis > that there is significant common ground strikes me as untested, much less > proven, especially if one includes the more radical positions. > > David Wojick > > On Apr 20, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray <s...@psu.edu> wrote: > > I have two brief comments to add to this thread. > > 1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that automatic translation, > however imperfect, could be satisfactory for certain scholarly purposes but > not others. We don;t always need an elegant translation to get the gist of > what is being said, and that may suffice for certain purposes, say, in > background reading. On the other hand, I have always opposed the CC BY > license as inadequate it deprives the author of control over quality in > translation, which is VERY important to scholars at least in the HSS fields, > if not in all. Once a poor translation is done, motivation (especially > market-based) declines for doing a better one. > > 2) As for "common ground," of course there is common ground to be found > amongst all types of publishers, but I see a fundamental "divide" between > nonprofit and for-profit publishers in that at least one potentially key > avenue toward open access, viz., endowment funding, is available to > nonprofits in a way it is not to for-profit publishers. Both nonprofit and > for-profit publishers can operate on the basis of having the market mechanism > be that by which they fund their businesses, but only nonprofits have these > nonmarket-based alternatives (which also include university subsidies to > presses) to explore as well. That is a basic difference that will determine > what the limits of "common ground" can be. > > Sandy Thatcher > From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org <scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> on > behalf of Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM > To: 'Kathleen Shearer' <m.kathleen.shea...@gmail.com>; > richard.poyn...@btinternet.com <richard.poyn...@btinternet.com>; > scholc...@lists.ala.org <scholc...@lists.ala.org>; 'Global Open Access List > (Successor of AmSci)' <goal@eprints.org> > Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly > Communications: A Call for Action > > Hi Kathleen, Richard, > Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. > As you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today > (http://plan-a.world). Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action plan, representing five > years of deep thinking that OSI participants have invested in the many > questions related to the future of scholarly communication reform. > Plan A looks at the “bibliodiversity” challenge a little differently. For > OSI, diversity has also meant inclusion---listening to everyone’s ideas > (including publishers), valuing everyone’s input, trying to develop a > complete understanding of the scholarly communication landscape, and trying > to reach a point where we can work together on common ground toward goals > that serve all of us. > We have found over the course of our work that most everyone in the scholarly > communication community recognizes the same challenges on the road ahead, we > all have the same needs, and we all suffer from the same inability to see the > full picture ourselves and to make change by ourselves. Fulfilling the vision > of bibliodiversity will mean valuing everyone’s perspective of and > contribution to the scholarly communication system, and truly working > together across our real and perceived divides to achieve, together, what is > in the best interest of research and society. > OSI’s common ground paper provides a deeper look at this common ground and > some of the approaches suggested by OSI participants. The summary version > will be published soon by Emerald Open; for now, the full-length version is > available under the resources tab of the Plan A website. > My short answer to your questions, Richard, about practical matters like how > all this change is going to transpire and through what mechanisms, is that > for us, this needs to be decided by Plan A signatories (and will be). This > effort is designed to tie into UNESCO’s ongoing open science roadmap work > (which OSI is helping with). UNESCO’s plan will be presented to the UN in > late 2021. The longer answer is that the real value in this conversation will > come as we “expand the pie.” This isn’t about looking for compromise > positions between read-only access and read-reuse, or between zero and > 6-month embargo periods. It’s about truly working together on common > interests, and thinking through issues in a way we haven’t before as a > community (in a large-scale, diverse, high level, policy-oriented sense). > I expect our efforts will cross paths in the years ahead, Kathleen. We would > be honored to collaborate and contribute to your work. > Best regards to you both, > Glenn > > Glenn Hampson > Executive Director > Science Communication Institute (SCI) > Program Director > Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) > <image004.jpg> > > > From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org <scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> On > Behalf Of Kathleen Shearer (via scholcomm Mailing List) > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 6:12 AM > To: richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open > Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> > Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly > Communications: A Call for Action > > Hello Richard, > > Yes, indeed, you are right, the coordinated actions required for > bibliodiversity are similar to the efforts needed to deal with the covid19 > pandemic. > > For your second question, the way I am envisioning the collaborations taking > place is as follows: much of the discussions across the different stakeholder > communities will happen at the national and sometimes regional level, while > the international coordination will take place, in parallel, within each > different stakeholder community. Although not a perfect solution, because > some countries are more cohesive than others, many communities already have > fairly strong regional and international relationships with their peers, > including scholarly societies, libraries, funders (e.g. the funders forum at > RDA), governments, as well as publishers, and repositories. > > > 1. Are translation technologies adequate to the task envisaged for them > in the document? > > > I’m not an expert on translation technologies, but my colleagues tell me that > for some languages the technologies are quite far along already and work well > (e.g. Spanish, French, Portuguese, Chinese), for others it will take a bit > longer. They are suggesting a timeline for most languages to have fairly good > translation tools available within the next 5 years. > > > 3. Might it be that the different interests and priorities of these > stakeholders are such that joint action is not possible, certainly in a way > that would satisfy all the stakeholders? After all, funders got involved with > open access because after 20+ years the other stakeholders had failed to work > together effectively. However, in doing so, these funders appear (certainly > in Europe) to be pushing the world in a direction that the authors of this > report deprecate. What, practically, can the movement do to achieve the > aspirations of the document beyond making a call to action or further > declarations? > > The point of this call to action is to raise awareness with funders and > others about this important issue. I’m not so cynical to think organizational > perspectives can never change. Strategies can (and should) evolve as we gain > a better understanding of the landscape, and adopt new ideas and principles. > We hope that this call to action will have that type of impact. > > And, yes of course not all interests will align, but we are already seeing > more cohesiveness at the national level than in the past. In Canada, where I > am based, for example, the funders, libraries and local Canadian publishers > are now in regular dialogue and collaborating to work on common action items > and to better align policies, funding and infrastructure. This is also > happening in other jurisdictions such as France with its Committee for Open > Science and Portugal where the national funder, universities (including > libraries and university presses) and scholarly societies have created and > maintain a national infrastructure for Open Access (hosting repositories and > journals) and aligned policies. > > > All the best, > Kathleen > > > Kathleen Shearer > Executive Director > Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) > www.coar-repositories.org > > > > > On Apr 16, 2020, at 1:31 AM, Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > “Designing a system that fosters bibliodiversity, while also supporting > research at the international level is extremely challenging. It means > achieving a careful balance between unity and diversity; international and > local; and careful coordination across different stakeholder communities and > regions in order to avoid a fragmented ecosystem.” > > That seems to me to be a key paragraph in this document. And the pandemic — > which requires that information is shared very quickly and broadly, and > across borders — does certainly highlight the fact that the current scholarly > communication system leaves a lot to be desired. > > I have three questions: > > 1. Are translation technologies adequate to the task envisaged for them > in the document? > > 2. How is it envisaged that researchers, policymakers, funders, service > providers, universities and libraries from around the world will all work > together, and by means of what forum? I know there are a number of > organisations and initiatives focused on the different issues raised in the > document (not least COAR) but how exactly, and by what means, will these > different stakeholders coordinate and work together to achieve the stated > aims? I know there are a number of library-led organisations (like COAR), but > is not a more diverse forum (in terms of the different stakeholders) needed? > How many members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S for instance? > > 3. Might it be that the different interests and priorities of these > stakeholders are such that joint action is not possible, certainly in a way > that would satisfy all the stakeholders? After all, funders got involved with > open access because after 20+ years the other stakeholders had failed to work > together effectively. However, in doing so, these funders appear (certainly > in Europe) to be pushing the world in a direction that the authors of this > report deprecate. What, practically, can the movement do to achieve the > aspirations of the document beyond making a call to action or further > declarations? > > Richard Poynder > > > On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 15:53, Kathleen Shearer <scholc...@lists.ala.org> > wrote: > (Apologies for the cross posting) > Dear all, > Today, my colleagues and I are issuing a “Call for Action!” > With the publication of this paper, Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly > Communications: A Call for Action, we are calling on the community to make > concerted efforts to develop strong, community-governed infrastructures that > support diversity in scholarly communications (referred to as > bibliodiversity). > Diversity is an essential characteristic of an optimal scholarly > communications system. Diversity in services and platforms, funding > mechanisms, and evaluation measures will allow the research communications to > accommodate the different workflows, languages, publication outputs, and > research topics that support the needs and epistemic pluralism of different > research communities. In addition, diversity reduces the risk of vendor > lock-in, which inevitably leads to monopoly, monoculture, and high prices. > We are living through unprecedented times, with a global pandemic sweeping > the world, leading to illness, death, and unparalleled economic upheaval. > Although our concerns about bibliodiversity have been growing for years, the > current crisis has exposed the deficiencies in a system that is increasingly > homogenous and prioritizes profits over the public good. > Stories abound about the urgent need for access to the research literature, > as illustrated, for example, by this message by Peter Murray-Rust posted to > the GOAL mailing list on March 31, 2020 > “My colleague, a software developer, working for free on openVirus software, > is spending most of his time working making masks in Cambridge Makespace to > ship to Addenbrooke’s hospital. When he goes to the literature to find > literature on masks, their efficacy and use and construction he finds paywall > after paywall after paywall after paywall ….” > For those who were not in favour of open access before, this global crisis > should settle the debate once and for all. > We must move away from a pay-to-read world in which researchers, > practitioners and the public cannot afford to access critical research > materials, or have to wait for embargo periods to lift before they can > develop life saving techniques, methods and vaccines. Access to the research > is simply too important. Yet, pay-to-publish, the open access model being > advanced by many in the commercial sector, is also inappropriate as it places > unacceptable financial barriers on researchers’ abilities to publish. > It is time to reassess some of the basic assumptions related to scholarly > communications, including competition, prestige, and the role of commercial > entities. The same values that underlie our research and education systems > should also guide research communications. > 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. > The problems we encounter have never been more complex and urgent, nor has > the need for solutions been greater. There is a real danger that new budget > constraints and an increasing proportion of funds directed towards large > commercial entities could lead to greater homogeneity and monopolization, > further hampering the free flow of research needed to address the critical > challenges we face. > Read the blog post here and full paper here > > Kathleen Shearer > Executive Director > Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) > www.coar-repositories.org > > > > > > -- > Richard Poynder > >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
