A lot of industry research is directly related to products and services so the results are proprietary. As an example, after I discovered the issue tree I was getting sole source federal contracts to do them, because only I knew how. So I never published anything on them.
Google does more R&D than NSF or DOE, somewhere around ten billion a year, but I doubt much is published. Might be fun to see how much. David > On Apr 21, 2020, at 1:47 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray <s...@psu.edu> wrote: > > One would expect that industry researchers are doing applied science almost > exclusively while academic researchers include many who do theoretical > science. I can't imagine that any industry researchers are investigating > string theory or parallel universes! > From: Glenn Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:40 AM > To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray <s...@psu.edu>; '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 > > Interesting idea Sandy. With regard to STM, I don’t have the exact numbers > off-hand (I’ll look for them) but the general idea is that most STM research > is conducted outside of academia, while most STM publishing happens in > academia. I’m not sure what this means (maybe someone else here does)---that > the type of research is different, or the communication approach is different > (with more reliance on white papers in industry), neither, or both. > > Best, > > Glenn > > > Glenn Hampson > Executive Director > Science Communication Institute (SCI) > Program Director > Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) > <image005.jpg> > > > > From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org <scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> On > Behalf Of Thatcher, Sanford Gray > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:05 AM > To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' <pm...@cam.ac.uk>; 'Global Open Access List > (Successor of AmSci)' <goal@eprints.org>; samuel.moor...@gmail.com; Glenn > Hampson <ghamp...@nationalscience.org> > 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 > > 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: > > <image006.jpg>High level: OSI’s purpose was (and remains) to bring together > leaders in the scholarly communication space to share perspectives. A good > number of the OSI participants (plus alumni and observers) have been > executive directors of nonprofits, vice-presidents of universities, > vice-presidents of publishing companies, library deans, directors of research > institutes, journal editors, and so on. Also represented are leaders in the > open space, and leaders of “born open” journals and efforts who are household > names in this space. You can see a rather outdated (sorry) list of OSI > partcipants, alumni and observers at http://osiglobal.org/osi-participants/; > a graphic is also pasted here (which may or may not survive the emailing). > About 18 different stakeholder groups are represented in all---covering 250+ > institutions and 28 countries---on a quota system that gives the most weight > to university representation. > > The intent here was not at all to bypass grassroots activism. Quite to the > contrary, the intent was to cut to the chase---to bring together the leaders > in this space who could speak most knowledgably about the issues and > challenges at hand, and work together directly (instead of through > intermediaries) to find common ground. We are always adding people to the > group. If you’re interested in participating, please just say the word. > > Going forward: OSI’s work has been rich and fascinating. But OSI may not end > up being in charge of Plan A---tbd. This plan represents the best thinking > and recommendations of OSI, but whether these recommendations go anywhere is > going to depend on Plan A signatories. You’re right---no plan, however > well-intended, can be foisted on the rest of the world unless it is truly > inclusive. That’s been a primary concern of everyone in OSI since day > 1---that even though this is a remarkably diverse group, it simply isn’t set > up to be a policy making body and inclusive as it is, still doesn’t include > enough representation from researchers and from all parts of the globe. It’s > a wonderful deliberative body, but we can’t decide anything amongst > ourselves, which is alternately enlightening and frustrating. It’s going to > take a different deliberative mechanism to create common ground policy (which > is why we’re also supporting UNESCO with their roadmap effort---they have the > tools and minister-level involvement to make policy). Our hope is that Plan A > signatories will lead this effort---we’ll know more in the coming months > about whether we have enough signatories to do this, whether we have the > budget, etc. The “financial” tab on the Plan A site describes what we’ll be > able to do with various levels of funding. > > That’s my short answer. Does this help? I’m happy to elaborate---probably > off-list unless there’s a groundswell of support for having me send another > 5000 word email to the list 😊 > > Thanks again for your interest and best regards, > > Glenn > > > Glenn Hampson > Executive Director > Science Communication Institute (SCI) > Program Director > Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) > > > > > From: Peter Murray-Rust <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> > 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/
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
