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 <scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> on behalf of Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:14 AM To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' <pm...@cam.ac.uk>; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' <goal@eprints.org>; samuel.moor...@gmail.com <samuel.moor...@gmail.com> Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi2016...@googlegroups.com>; 'scholcomm' <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---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/<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fosiglobal.org%2Fosi-participants%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7C2847f066ca8541bea12608d7e606e888%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637230789664877347&sdata=i9s%2FLenqLfqT%2BV901CcF4Qrge5NLmyK7SInBki6OVMY%3D&reserved=0>; 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 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)<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsci.institute%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7C2847f066ca8541bea12608d7e606e888%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637230789664887347&sdata=wl1ssvYXibuVCYIoAh8A5eWJelWoZoPQNf1aEISR9as%3D&reserved=0> Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fosiglobal.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7C2847f066ca8541bea12608d7e606e888%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637230789664887347&sdata=NjklNjdNmJ8yOAQutR9qipcdFRou3SqlwYCWO4kuF8g%3D&reserved=0> [cid:image006.jpg@01D617B4.D1B37700]<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fosiglobal.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7C2847f066ca8541bea12608d7e606e888%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637230789664897340&sdata=RLbNZpR%2Fa2F8l4NnCT3v42A9tCG1b6gxmHf%2BjmxNRbQ%3D&reserved=0> From: Peter Murray-Rust <pm...@cam.ac.uk> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 3:21 AM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> Cc: Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi2016...@googlegroups.com>; scholcomm <scholc...@lists.ala.org> Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:48 AM Samuel Moore <samuel.moor...@gmail.com<mailto:samuel.moor...@gmail.com>> 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 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/<https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.samuelmoore.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7C2847f066ca8541bea12608d7e606e888%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637230789664897340&sdata=VEC5HpCZVaEFQed3K%2Fa6aqFoEXzcO82zqqnzN4Fez8c%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
