Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research articles
Stevan, It is far easier for Congress to change the law than for every US researcher to insist on the proper version of CC BY, whatever that is. Plus CC BY still restricts use, hence access, for the author's lifetime plus 70 years. David Ps: please forward this reply to the GOA list you posted your reply to. On Mar 22, 2018, at 4:42 PM, "Stevan Harnad" (via scholcomm Mailing List) wrote: > The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors needn't > invent it, just adopt it. > > And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, whatsoever. > > And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly > journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on them > as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make America Great > Again"...) > > (And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less > glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global warming > in which DW does not believe...) > > On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:08 PM, David Wojick > wrote: > John Willinsky has a fascinating OA proposal, namely that copyright law be > changed to make research articles publicly available after a very short time. > > I have written about this proposal in some detail in my Inside Public Access > newsletter, which I have made OA to facilitate discussion. See below and also > at > http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html > . Apologies for cross posting but this looks important as a policy proposal. > > It seems like a good idea. Given that journal articles are not written for > profit, the authors may not need 100 years or so of copyright protection. > > Comments? > > David > http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > > > Public Access limited copyright? > > The following is adapted from the March 15 issue of my newsletter: "Inside > Public Access" > > Synopsis: OA guru John Willinsky proposes that we change the copyright law to > embrace public access. It is a big step but it may make sense. > > Canadian scholar and OA guru John Willinsky (now at Stanford) has written a > thought provoking book and blog article. The basic idea is amazingly simple: > If we are going to make research articles publicly available then we should > change the copyright law to do just that. > > Here is how Willinsky puts it (speaking just of Canada): > > "Canada is recognizing that people everywhere have a right to this body of > knowledge that it differs significantly from their right to other > intellectual property (which begins well after the author’s lifetime)." > > What is true for Canada is true for America too. In fact the Canadian > government has a public access program that is similar to the US program. > > The point is that copyright law gives authors certain rights for a certain > time, that is very long (say 100 years), and the idea here is to dramatically > shorten that time for a specific set of articles, namely research articles in > journals. > > As Willinsky points out, we are already making a lot of these articles OA > (such as under the US Public Access Program) by funder mandate. Codifying > this existing practice, without the funder limitation, would be easy as far > as legislative drafting is concerned. > > Getting it passed is another matter, of course, but I can see it having > bipartisan support. The Democrats would like the health care argument for OA > and the Republicans would like the innovation and economic growth argument. > The key point is that the researcher authors are not writing to make money. > One could even argue that a lifetime+ copyright was misapplied to them in the > first place. We need the present limited embargo period of 12 months to > protect the publishing system, but that is all. > > This idea fits the fundamentals elegantly. That makes it an attractive policy. > > In fact Congress has already taken a step in this direction. Public Access > originated in the Executive Branch, but Congress has now legislated it for > the Departments of HHS (think NIH), Education and Labor. > > One possible objection is that the 12 month embargo period is too short for > some disciplines. However, the publishers have had five years to raise this > issue formally with the US Public Access agencies and to my knowledge none > has done so. > > On the other hand, some disciplines are only lightly funded by the Public > Access agencies. In that sense their case has yet to arise and they can make > it in the legislative process. I imagine that if Congress were to move in the >
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for research articles
We may actually be in agreement, Stevan You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse." I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher authors are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+ copyright was misapplied to them in the first place." We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles should become public domain quickly. As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the Public Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I do not see Congress gutting the journal publishing community. David http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\) wrote: The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors needn't invent it, just adopt it. And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, whatsoever. And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make America Great Again"...) (And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global warming in which DW does not believe...) On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:08 PM, David Wojick <<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>dwoj...@craigellachie.us> wrote: John Willinsky has a fascinating OA proposal, namely that copyright law be changed to make research articles publicly available after a very short time. I have written about this proposal in some detail in my Inside Public Access newsletter, which I have made OA to facilitate discussion. See below and also at <http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html>http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html . Apologies for cross posting but this looks important as a policy proposal. It seems like a good idea. Given that journal articles are not written for profit, the authors may not need 100 years or so of copyright protection. Comments? David <http://insidepublicaccess.com/>http://insidepublicaccess.com/ Public Access limited copyright? The following is adapted from the March 15 issue of my <http://insidepublicaccess.com/>newsletter: "Inside Public Access" Synopsis: OA guru John Willinsky proposes that we change the copyright law to embrace public access. It is a big step but it may make sense. Â Canadian scholar and OA guru John Willinsky (now at Stanford) has written a thought provoking book and <http://www.slaw.ca/2018/03/09/let-canada-be-first-to-turn-an-open-access-research-policy-into-a-legal-right-to-know/?t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjcw%3D%3D&refsrc=email&iid=6d62950ff7b6420580c05d212d85d50f&fl=4&uid=2192321690&nid=244+272699400>blog article. The basic idea is amazingly simple: If we are going to make research articles publicly available then we should change the copyright law to do just that. Here is how Willinsky puts it (speaking just of Canada): "Canada is recognizing that people everywhere have a right to this body of knowledge that it differs significantly from their right to other intellectual property (which begins well after the authorâs lifetime)." What is true for Canada is true for America too. In fact the Canadian government has a public access program that is similar to the US program. The point is that copyright law gives authors certain rights for a certain time, that is very long (say 100 years), and the idea here is to dramatically shorten that time for a specific set of articles, namely research articles in journals. As Willinsky points out, we are already making a lot of these articles OA (such as under the US Public Access Program) by funder mandate. Codifying this existing practice, without the funder limitation, would be easy as far as legislative drafting is concerned. Getting it passed is another matter, of course, but I can see it having bipartisan support. The Democrats would like the health care argument for OA and the Republicans would like the innovation and economic growth argument. The key point is that the researcher authors are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+ copyright was misapplied to them in the first place. We need the present limited embargo period of 12 months to protect the publishing system, but that is all. This idea fits the fundamentals elegantly. That makes it an attractive policy. In fact Congress has already taken a
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles
Sandy, I think the argument here is that the benefits of OA are sufficiently great that isolated instances like this do not outweigh them. Keep in mind too that if any article flows from federal funding it will already be made public after 12 months, at least the accepted manuscript will be, albeit in some cases. subject to copyright restrictions. David At 11:48 AM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote: >Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, there >was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got reprinted >many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned well over >$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny >authors >that possibility to earn extra income? Of course, the market for anthologies >in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot. > >Sandy Thatcher > >P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal >article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 copies >for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the >public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP >denied >the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make this kind >of serendipity impossible to achieve? > > > > >On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick wrote: > > > >We may actually be in agreement, Stevan > > > >You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something > >scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just > >foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse." > > > >I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher authors > >are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+ > >copyright was misapplied to them in the first place." > > > >We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles > >should become public domain quickly. > > > >As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that > >directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the Public > >Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I do not > >see Congress gutting the journal publishing community. > > > >David > >http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > > > >At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\) wrote: > >>The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors needn't > >>invent it, just adopt it. > >> > >>And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, whatsoever. > >> > >>And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly > >>journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on > >>them as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make America > >>Great Again"...) > >> > >>(And now, back to a world where things actually move forward at a less > >>glacial tempo, sometimes... OA could have used a dose of the global > >>warming in which DW does not believe...) > >> > >>On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:08 PM, David Wojick > >><<mailto:dwoj...@craigellachie.us>dwoj...@craigellachie.us> wrote: > >>John Willinsky has a fascinating OA proposal, namely that copyright law be > >>changed to make research articles publicly available after a very short > time. > >> > >>I have written about this proposal in some detail in my Inside Public > >>Access newsletter, which I have made OA to facilitate discussion. See > >>below and also at > >><http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright > .html>http://davidwojick.blogspot.com/2018/03/public-access-limited-copyright.html > > > >>. Apologies for cross posting but this looks important as a policy > proposal. > >> > >>It seems like a good idea. Given that journal articles are not written for > >>profit, the authors may not need 100 years or so of copyright protection. > >> > >>Comments? > >> > >>David > >><http://insidepublicaccess.com/>http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>Public Access limited copyright? > >> > >> > >> > >>The following is adapted from the March 15 issue of my > >><http://insidepublicaccess.com/>newsletter: "Inside Public Access" > >> > >>Synopsis
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Willinsky proposes short copyright for researcharticles
Saying that shortening the term of copyright for journal articles somehow limits academic freedom seems like a strange argument (at best). It may limit academic opportunity to make money in the rare cases you mention but most legislation involves tradeoffs like this. The benefits of OA are claimed by some to be in the billions of dollars. That some professors might make a few thousand dollars less does not stack up well against that. David Wojick At 12:54 PM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote: >It's highly unlikely that Frankfurt or the other author I mentioned received >any federal funding that entailed making their work public domain. The >question arises--as it does for forcing authors to accept CC BY as the default >OA license--whether academic freedom should be limited in this way or whether >it is not better for authors to have the choice of NOT injecting their work >into the public domain. Does the public good always trump academic freedom? > >Sandy Thatcher > >On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 12:05 PM David Wojick wrote: > > > >Sandy, I think the argument here is that the benefits of OA are > >sufficiently great that isolated instances like this do not outweigh them. > >Keep in mind too that if any article flows from federal funding it will > >already be made public after 12 months, at least the accepted manuscript > >will be, albeit in some cases. subject to copyright restrictions. > > > >David > > > >At 11:48 AM 3/23/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote: > >>Back in the days when publishers were putting out a lot of anthologies, > there > >>was serious money to be made by authors of journal articles that got > reprinted > >>many times. One author of ours at Penn State during that era earned > well over > >>$10,000 from reprint rights to one of his articles. Do you want to deny > >>authors > >>that possibility to earn extra income? Of course, the market for > anthologies > >>in the digital era is not what it once was, so maybe this point is moot. > >> > >>Sandy Thatcher > >> > >>P.S. However, let me remind everyone that Harry Frankfurt turned a journal > >>article into a short book titled "On Bullshit," which sold over 300,000 > copies > >>for Princeton University Press. Had that article gone prematurely into the > >>public domain, Frankfurt would have been a much less wealthy man and PUP > >>denied > >>the opportunity to publish a best seller. Do you really want to make > this kind > >>of serendipity impossible to achieve? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 11:03 AM David Wojick > wrote: > >> > > >> >We may actually be in agreement, Stevan > >> > > >> >You say this ""100 years or so of copyright protection" is something > >> >scholarly journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just > >> >foisted on them as a 'value added" they could not refuse." > >> > > >> >I say this in my IPA article: "The key point is that the researcher > authors > >> >are not writing to make money. One could even argue that a lifetime+ > >> >copyright was misapplied to them in the first place." > >> > > >> >We seem to be saying the same thing, as is Willinsky. Journal articles > >> >should become public domain quickly. > >> > > >> >As for the embargo period, I do not think Willinsky addresses that > >> >directly. I pick 12 months because it is already established in the > Public > >> >Access Program, which Congress has already endorsed several times. I > do not > >> >see Congress gutting the journal publishing community. > >> > > >> >David > >> >http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > >> > > >> >At 04:42 PM 3/22/2018, Stevan Harnad \(via scholcomm Mailing List\) > wrote: > >> >>The copyright agreement already exists. It's called CC-BY. Authors > needn't > >> >>invent it, just adopt it. > >> >> > >> >>And there is no need or justification for any delay or embargo, > whatsoever. > >> >> > >> >>And "100 years or so of copyright protection" is something scholarly > >> >>journal-article authors never needed or wanted. It was just foisted on > >> >>them as a 'value added" they could not refuse. (Rather like "Make > America > >> >>Great Again"...) > >> >> >
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom
In particular, the fact that present copyright law enables one to make money from one's journal articles is not part of academic freedom. Also note that Willinsky's copyright reform proposal does not create a journal selection limitation, because it applies to all journals. The proposal is to shorten the term of the copyright granted to the author. This copyright transfers to any publisher that requires it as a condition of publication. David Dr. David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ On Mar 24, 2018, at 4:07 AM, Danny Kingsley wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Can we have a quick chat about Academic Freedom? I am frankly fed up with > this being trotted out in multiple discussions in relation to open access. It > is akin to the PhD student who recently tearfully told me that the > University’s requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis > in addition to the hardbound one was a ‘breach of her human rights’. I feel > the academic freedom argument is moving into similar levels of hysteria. > > I wrote a blog recently that addresses this issue: Scare campaigns, we have > seen a few https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=1905 (relevant > bits below) > > Usually I hear ‘Academic Freedom’ thrown in in relation to being able to > choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion > about Willinsky’s copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown into > the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement > that: “Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by > academics are not consistent with academic freedom.” But copyright ownership > (other than the moral right to be identified as an author of a work), and the > place of publication are NOT enshrined in academic freedom. > > > > Academic Freedom is not being threatened by copyright licensing requirements. > This is a stupid side issue. We are fiddling while Rome burns. The real > threat to academic freedom is the systematic undermining of expertise and > academia. As the UK justice secretary recently said - “People in this country > have had enough of experts” > https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c Let’s not > even begin to talk about what is happening in the land of stripes and stars. > > > > Let’s keep focus on the issues that matter. > > > > Danny > > > > * > > The new scare – threats to ‘Academic Freedom’ > > The term ‘Academic Freedom’ comes up a fair bit in discussions about open > access. In his tweet sent during the Researcher to Reader conference*, one > of my Advisory Board colleagues Rick Anderson tweeted this comment: > > “Most startling thing said to me in conversation at the #R2RConf: > “I wonder how much longer academic freedom will be tolerated in IHEs.” > (Specific context: authors being allowed to choose where they publish.) > > In this blog I’d like to pick up on the ‘Academic Freedom’ part of the > comment (which is not Rick’s, he was quoting). > > Academic Freedom, according to a summary in the Times Higher Education is > primarily that “Academic freedom means that both faculty members and students > can engage in intellectual debate without fear of censorship or retaliation”. > > This definition was based on the American Association of University > Professors’ (AAUP) Statement on Academic Freedom which includes, quite > specifically, “full freedom in research and in the publication of results”. > > Personally I read that as meaning academics should be allowed to publish, not > that they have full freedom in choosing where. > > Rick has since contacted the AAUP to ask for clarification on this topic. > Last Friday, he tweeted that the AAUP has declined to revisit the 1940 > statement to clarify the ‘freedom in publication’ statement in light of > evolution of scholarly communication since 1940. > > The reason why the Academic Freedom/ ‘restricting choice of publication’ > threat(s) is so concerning to the research community has changed over time. > In the past it was essential to be able to publish in specific outlets > because colleagues would only read certain publications. Those publications > were effectively the academic ‘voice’. However today, with online publication > and search engines this argument no longer holds. > > What does matter however is the publication in certain journals is necessary > because of the way people are valued and rewarded. The problem is not open > access, the problem is the reward system to which we are beholden. And the > commercial publishing industry is fully aware of this. >
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom
I cannot speak for Danny but this seems to confuse intellectual freedom, which the term "academic freedom" usually means, with freedom from regulation. Academics are governed by a great many rules, each of which may restrict their freedom in some way. None of this necessarily has anything to do with academic freedom. So I would say that things like contract requirements have nothing to do with academic freedom, unless they specify what cannot be said. Copyright does not do this. David David Wojick http://insidepublicaccess.com/ At 03:26 PM 3/24/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote: >So, Danny, let me ask if you are ok with funders requiring authors to publish >under a CC BY license and waive all rights they otherwise would have to have >input into how and where their writings get translated and how and where their >works are republished (e.g., in edited form that distorts the author's meaning >and associates the author with a cause, ideology, etc. that the author finds >abhorrent)? > >Is these rights do not pertain to academic freedom, please explain why. > >The same might be asked of those universities that require immediate OA >posting >of dissertations, allowing no time for an author to revise it and find a >publisher for it. Various associations (in history, medieval studies, etc.) >have adopted recommended embargo periods to deal with this problem. You are >saying that those associations are wrong to be concerned about this problem? >That this has nothing to do with academic freedom either? > >Sandy thatcher > > > >On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:07 AM Danny Kingsley wrote: > > > >Hi all, > > > >Can we have a quick chat about Academic Freedom? I am frankly fed up > with this >being trotted out in multiple discussions in relation to open access. It is >akin to the PhD student who recently tearfully told me that the Universityâs >requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis in addition to >the hardbound one was a âbreach of her human rightsâ. I feel the academic >freedom argument is moving into similar levels of hysteria. > >I wrote a blog recently that addresses this issue: Scare campaigns, we have >seen a few<https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p05> >https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p05 (relevant bits below) > >Usually I hear âAcademic Freedomâ thrown in in relation to being able to >choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion >about Willinskyâs copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown into >the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement >that: >âPolicies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by >academics are not consistent with academic freedom.â But copyright ownership >(other than the moral right to be identified as an author of a work), and the >place of publication are NOT enshrined in academic freedom. > > > >Academic Freedom is not being threatened by copyright licensing > requirements. >This is a stupid side issue. We are fiddling while Rome burns. The real threat >to academic freedom is the systematic undermining of expertise and >academia. As >the UK justice secretary recently said - âPeople in this country have had >enough of expertsâ >https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c Letâs not >even begin to talk about what is happening in the land of stripes and stars. > > > >Letâs keep focus on the issues that matter. > > > >Danny > > > >* > >The new scare threats to âAcademic Freedomâ > > > >The term âAcademic Freedomâ comes up a fair bit in discussions about > open >access. In his tweet sent during the Researcher to Reader conference*, one of >my Advisory Board colleagues Rick Anderson tweeted this >comment<https://twitter.com/Looptopper/status/968463945190313984>: > > > >âMost startling thing said to me in conversation at the #R2RConf: > >âI wonder how much longer academic freedom will be tolerated in IHEs.â >(Specific context: authors being allowed to choose where they publish.) > > > >In this blog Iâd like to pick up on the âAcademic Freedomâ part of the >comment (which is not Rickâs, he was quoting). > > > >Academic Freedom, according to a summary in the Times Higher >Education<https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/12/21/defining-academic-freedom> > >is primarily that âAcademic freedom means that both faculty members and >students can engage in intellectual debate without fear of censorship or >retaliationâ. > > > >This definition was based on the American Association of Universit
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom
Actually the AAUP definition is too vague to be correct, but the meaning of "academic freedom" is not arbitrary. (Concept analysis is my field.) Its normal meaning is something like being able to study, teach and say whatever one likes. Not being told what to do by your employer or funder is not part of it unless it abridges this freedom and open access policies do not do that. Neither would a university taking ownership of your writing that they paid for. Only if they told you what to write or not to white would they be abridging academic freedom. What Danny has correctly pointed to is people using the term "academic freedom" in a nonstandard way as a rhetorical device in a policy debate. This sort of stretching of value-laden language is quite common in policy debates. David Wojick At 04:55 PM 3/24/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote: >Universities in the US under copyright law could, if they so chose, to specify >that all faculty writings done in the course of their employment that >relate to >their academic careers are to be regarded as "work made for hire." Under that >regime academic authors would have no rights at all with respect to their >publications. So, yes, copyright could, in theory, be used to take away all >choice. That might not be a matter of content, but I see no reason to restrict >the meaning of "academic freedom" to just the idea that appears in the AAUP's >statement. That's an arbitrary definition. > >Sandy Thatcher > >On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:02 PM David Wojick wrote: > > > >I cannot speak for Danny but this seems to confuse intellectual freedom, > >which the term "academic freedom" usually means, with freedom from > >regulation. Academics are governed by a great many rules, each of which may > >restrict their freedom in some way. None of this necessarily has anything > >to do with academic freedom. > > > >So I would say that things like contract requirements have nothing to do > >with academic freedom, unless they specify what cannot be said. Copyright > >does not do this. > > > >David > > > >David Wojick > >http://insidepublicaccess.com/ > > > >At 03:26 PM 3/24/2018, SANFORD G THATCHER wrote: > >>So, Danny, let me ask if you are ok with funders requiring authors to > publish > >>under a CC BY license and waive all rights they otherwise would have to > have > >>input into how and where their writings get translated and how and > where their > >>works are republished (e.g., in edited form that distorts the author's > meaning > >>and associates the author with a cause, ideology, etc. that the author > finds > >>abhorrent)? > >> > >>Is these rights do not pertain to academic freedom, please explain why. > >> > >>The same might be asked of those universities that require immediate OA > >>posting > >>of dissertations, allowing no time for an author to revise it and find a > >>publisher for it. Various associations (in history, medieval studies, etc.) > >>have adopted recommended embargo periods to deal with this problem. You are > >>saying that those associations are wrong to be concerned about this > problem? > >>That this has nothing to do with academic freedom either? > >> > >>Sandy thatcher > >> > >> > >> > >>On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:07 AM Danny Kingsley wrote: > >> > > >> >Hi all, > >> > > >> >Can we have a quick chat about Academic Freedom? I am frankly fed up > >> with this > >>being trotted out in multiple discussions in relation to open access. It is > >>akin to the PhD student who recently tearfully told me that the >Universityâs >s > >>requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis in > addition to > >>the hardbound one was a âbreach of her human rightsâ. I feel the > the >academic > >>freedom argument is moving into similar levels of hysteria. > >> >I wrote a blog recently that addresses this issue: Scare campaigns, > we have > >>seen a few<https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p05> > >>https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p05 (relevant bits below) > >> >Usually I hear âAcademic Freedomâ thrown in in relation to >n to >being able to > >>choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion > >>about Willinskyâs copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown >n >into > >>the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement > >>
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] On Academic Freedom
The point is that the dominant role of copyright in scholarly publishing is to benefit the publisher, to the detriment of OA, not the author. In fact it is argued that OA benefits the author. This is why Wallinsky's simple OA proposal is to reduce the copyright term to the minimum needed to maintain publishing. My version of this proposal is based on the US Public Access Program's 12 month embargo, but the basic concept is variable. The goal is to eliminate long term copyright for journal articles. David On Mar 26, 2018, at 7:29 PM, "SANFORD G THATCHER" wrote: > Yes, in theory the publisher has all the rights and can do what it wants with > respect to translations. But then you should check with your publisher to see > what kind of translation rights agreement the publisher uses when licensing > foreign rights. Very often, if not universally, that contract will include a > clause stipulating that the author has the right to vet the translation before > it is published. > > As for the publisher exercising a right not to have the author publish another > work on the same subject that could affect the sales of the work under > contract. all contracts I know of have a "competing works" clause that deals > with this issue. > > Finally, I'm well aware of how the increase in journal subscriptions prices > affected the sales of university press monographs and have written about that > subject many times. here is one example: > https://scholarsphere.psu.edu/concern/generic_works/sf268537s > > And people who know me know that I have long been a strong advocate for OA. I > drafted the AAUP (presses)'s Statement on Open Access in 2007. > > Sandy Thatcher > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 10:37 AM Jennifer Heise wrote: >> >> I have some questions in relation to these assertions: >> >> I'm unclear how signing your copyright over to a publisher in toto (which >> is basically what I was asked to do when publishing with Haworth) would >> still allow you the right to object to derivative works. Surely only the >> copyright owner can object to derivative works, and in fact, if the creator >> is not the copyright owner, the copyright owner has the right to object to >> derivative works subsequently published by the original creator! (In fact, >> this is one of the issues I believe the Statute of Anne was meant to >> address-- Gervase Markham, for instance, was sued by a consortium of his >> publishers for having sold them all works that were derivatives of each >> other.) >> >> In terms of restricting where one may publish, doesn't the usual >> institutional tenure and promotion policy do that as well, if more subtly? >> There are definite expectations of where one may publish, as I understand ___ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
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 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 on > behalf of Glenn Hampson > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM > To: 'Kathleen Shearer' ; > richard.poyn...@btinternet.com ; > scholc...@lists.ala.org ; 'Global Open Access List > (Successor of AmSci)' > 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 i
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. What is the common ground between these two large groups? David > On Apr 20, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Glenn Hampson > 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) > > > > > From: David Wojick > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM > To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray > Cc: Kathleen Shearer ; > richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access > List (Successor of AmSci) ; Glenn Hampson > > 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 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 on > behalf of Glenn Hampson > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM > To: 'Kathleen Shearer' ; > richard.poyn...@btinternet.com ; > scholc...@lists.ala.org ; 'Global Open Access List > (Successor of AmSci)' > 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
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, 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 Hinchliffe > Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction > University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, > Illinois 61801 > ljani...@illinois.edu, 217-333-1323 (v), 217-244-4358 (f) > > > > From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org on > behalf of David Wojick > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:04 PM > To: Glenn Hampson > Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; Kathleen Shearer > ; > ; > ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > > 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 > 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) >> >> >> >> >> From: David Wojick >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM >> To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray >> Cc: Kathleen Shearer ; >> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access >> List (Successor of AmSci) ; Glenn Hampson >> >> 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 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 on >> behalf of Glenn Hampson >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM >> To: 'Kathleen Shearer' ; >> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com ; >> scholc...@lists.ala.org ;
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 wrote: > > 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 > ljani...@illinois.edu, 217-333-1323 (v), 217-244-4358 (f) > > > > From: David Wojick > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:41 PM > To: Hinchliffe, Lisa W > Cc: Glenn Hampson ; Thatcher, Sanford Gray > ; Kathleen Shearer ; > ; > ; Global Open Access List > (Successor of AmSci) > Subject: Re: [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, 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 Hinchliffe >> Professor/ Coordinator for Information Literacy Services and Instruction >> University Library, University of Illinois, 1408 West Gregory Drive, Urbana, >> Illinois 61801 >> ljani...@illinois.edu, 217-333-1323 (v), 217-244-4358 (f) >> >> >> >> From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org on >> behalf of David Wojick >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:04 PM >> To: Glenn Hampson >> Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; Kathleen Shearer >> ; >> ; >> ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) >> >> 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 >> 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) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: David Wojick >>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM >>> To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray >>> Cc: Kathleen Shearer ; >>> richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access >>> List (Successor of AmSci) ; Glenn Hampson >>> >>> 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 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 al
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. David > On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:46 PM, Glenn Hampson > 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) > > > From: David Wojick > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 12:05 PM > To: Glenn Hampson > Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; Kathleen Shearer > ; > ; > ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > > 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 > 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) > > > > > From: David Wojick > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM > To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray > Cc: Kathleen Shearer ; > richard.poyn...@btinternet.com; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access > List (Successor of AmSci) ; Glenn Hampson > > 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 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 pu
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
I dislike metaphors in reasoning but in the travel case the publishers are more like the official who approves your visa to enter their country, for a fee. The idea that one can restructure an industry without consulting the leading producers strikes me as unlikely to work. It is a coup and they are notable limited in success. David > On Apr 21, 2020, at 2:15 PM, Heather Piwowar wrote: > > > I believe the ones who "really live and breathe these issues on a daily > basis" are actually the researchers and public and policy makers who can't > get access to research they need to improve society. > > They, and many others who share their views (myself included), don't > participate in the OSI discussions because they just plain start from the > wrong place. The "needs" of publishers shouldn't matter any more than the > "needs" of travel agents mattered, I believe. > > Some of us are listed in the OSI website because we dipped our toe in before > realizing that it wasn't a group where our time was best spent. > > Heather > > --- > Heather Piwowar, cofounder > Our Research: We build tools to make scholarly research more open, connected, > and reusable—for everyone. > follow at @researchremix, @our_research, and @unpaywall > > >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:09 AM Glenn Hampson >> wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> >> >> Sorry. The web list can be hard to parse because it’s alphabetical by first >> name and not sortable by stakeholder group, plus it hasn’t been updated in a >> while. But there are actually around a dozen active researchers in OSI >> (actually more---that’s just their “primary” designation for “accounting” >> purposes but they can also be a the head of a research organization and an >> active researcher at the same time), several medical doctors (but again, >> this isn’t a stakeholder group---these folks may instead be categorized as a >> journal editor or university official), and representatives from 28 >> countries in all regions of the world. Most of our current and former OSIers >> are from the US and Europe, but broadening our international representation >> is something we’ve been working on for a while. >> >> >> >> In the common ground report you’ll find a table showing the most recent >> count of current participants and their stakeholder “designations” (it’s >> more detailed than the pie chart from before). This said, as Kathleen has >> noted, one shouldn’t read into this that x% of the conversation on the OSI >> list comes from library officials, or y% from commercial publishers. I would >> say that most of the ongoing deliberation on the list is between scholarly >> communication analysts and library leaders who really live and breathe these >> issues on a daily basis. >> >> >> >> Stakeholder group >> >> Number of participants (Dec 2019) >> >> Percent of OSI group >> >> Research universities >> >> 56 >> >> 14% >> >> Libraries & library groups >> >> 51 >> >> 13% >> >> Commercial publishers >> >> 39 >> >> 10% >> >> Open groups and publishers >> >> 37 >> >> 9% >> >> Industry analysts >> >> 36 >> >> 9% >> >> Government policy groups >> >> 35 >> >> 9% >> >> Non-university research institutions >> >> 21 >> >> 5% >> >> Scholcomm experts >> >> 20 >> >> 5% >> >> Scholarly societies >> >> 19 >> >> 5% >> >> Faculty groups >> >> 16 >> >> 4% >> >> University publishers >> >> 16 >> >> 4% >> >> Funders >> >> 14 >> >> 4% >> >> Active researchers >> >> 9 >> >> 2% >> >> Editors >> >> 8 >> >> 2% >> >> Journalists >> >> 6 >> >> 2% >> >> Tech industry >> >> 5 >> >> 1% >> >> Infrastructure groups >> >> 3 >> >> 1% >> >> Other universities >> >> 2 >> >> 1% >> >> Elected officials >> >> 1 >> >> 0% >> >> TOTAL >> >> 394 >> >> 100% >> >> >> >> I hope this helps. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Glenn >> >> >> >> >> >> Glenn Hampson >> Executive Director >> Science Communication Institute (SCI) >> Program Director >> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Peter Murray-Rust >> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:23 AM >> To: Glenn Hampson >> Cc: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; Samuel >> Moore ; The Open Scholarship Initiative >> ; scholcomm >> Subject: Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly >> Communications: A Call for Action >> >> >> >> Thanks for outlining this. There are 300-400 people on the OSI list. I could >> not find: >> * any researchers >> * any doctors/medics >> * anyone from the Global South >> >> But there are 9 directors from Elsevier. >> And everyone else is director of this, chief of that, CEO of the other. >> >> In the early days of OA in UK The >> https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-open-up-publicly-funded-research >> Finch Report invited the closed access publishers to help reform >> publishing. For many of us this was a a complete betrayal of the radicalism >
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
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 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 > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 11:40 AM > To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray ; 'Peter Murray-Rust' > ; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' > ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com > Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; > 'scholcomm' > 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) > > > > > From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org On > Behalf Of Thatcher, Sanford Gray > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 9:05 AM > To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' ; 'Global Open Access List > (Successor of AmSci)' ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com; Glenn > Hampson > Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; > 'scholcomm' > 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 on > behalf of Glenn Hampson > Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 10:14 AM > To: 'Peter Murray-Rust' ; 'Global Open Access List > (Successor of AmSci)' ; samuel.moor...@gmail.com > > Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' ; > 'scholcomm' > 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: > > 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 re
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models
Glenn is drawing upon lengthy discussions of the problem of multiple definitions that we have had at OSI. Looking back I find that I first wrote about this issue seven years ago: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/11/11/open-access-on-the-sea-of-confusion/ It might be better to call them concepts or models than definitions, but it remains that different people are calling for or allowing very different things as being open access. At one extreme we have, for example, the US Public Access Program, which is basically read only with a 12 month embargo for subscription articles. At another extreme we find born open with no restrictions on use. In between there are at least a dozen variations, many more if one counts small differences, like the CC BY variants. This wide ranging multiplicity of incompatible definitions is a very real obstacle to public policy. On a more distant topic, profit is a public good if it provides a public service. Food, for example. David Wojick Inside Public Access On Jun 26, 2020, at 1:55 PM, Kathleen Shearer wrote: Glenn, all, I don’t think there really is a large variation in current definitions of open; but there are some stakeholders who want to slow progress, and use this as an excuse :-( The issue of diversity is an important one, although not in the way that it is expressed by Glenn, (which is diversity in stakeholders goals - profit vs public good), but diversity of needs, capacities, priorities, languages, formats in different fields and countries. And these diverse requirements cannot be supported effectively by any one large centralized infrastructure, which will tend to cater to the most well resourced users (or the majority). While there are some international infrastructures that are appropriate, the “global commons” should also be composed of many localized infrastructures and services that are governed by, and can respond to, the needs of those local communities; and then we must figure out how these infrastructures can be interoperable through adoption of common standards that will allow us to share and communicate at the global level. This requires finding a delicate balance, a balance that possibly the UNESCO discussions can help to progress. As a UNESCO Open Science Partner, COAR brings this perspective to the table (as I’m sure some others will too). All the best, Kathleen Kathleen Shearer Executive Director Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) www.coar-repositories.org > On Jun 26, 2020, at 11:47 AM, Glenn Hampson > wrote: > > Hi Heather, Anis, Rob, > > It’s also important to note the emerging UNESCO model, which will be > presented to the UN General Assembly for consideration in late 2021. I > suspect (and hope) this model will be more “polycentric” and “adaptive” than > any of the current plans. > > As you know, many organizations have had an opportunity to submit comments on > UNESCO’s plan; indeed, global consultations are still ongoing. OSI’s > recommendations are listed here: https://bit.ly/2CL4Nm7. The executive > summary is this: “Open” is a very diverse space. Not only do our definitions > of open differ greatly, so too do our perceptions of the etymology of open > (whether we use BOAI as the starting point or just one point among many). > Also, critically, our open goals and motives differ greatly in this > community; open progress and approaches vary by field of study; and different > approaches have different focus points, principles, incentives, and financial > considerations. In short, our challenge of creating a more open future for > research defies one-size-fits all description, and it certainly defies > one-size fits-all solution. > > Recognizing and respecting this diversity, OSI’s recommendations, which are > based on five years of global consultations in collaboration with UNESCO, are > that a just and workable global plan for the future of open must do the > following: > > DISCOVER critical missing pieces of the open scholarship puzzle so we can > design our open reforms more effectively; > DESIGN, build and deploy an array of much needed open infrastructure tools to > help accelerate the spread and adoption of open scholarship practices; > WORK TOGETHER on finding common ground perspective solutions that address key > issues and concerns (see OSI’s Common Ground policy paper for more detail); > and > REDOUBLE OUR COLLECTIVE EFFORTS to educate and listen to the research > community about open solutions, and in doing so design solutions that better > meet the needs of research. > > In pursuing these actions, the international community should: > > Work and contribute together (everyone, including publishers); > Work on all pieces of the puzzle so we can clear a path for open to succeed; > Discover missing
Re: [GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models
It is not a matter of getting bogged down. The point is that the open access movement, like many social movements, includes a broad diversity of concepts as to what counts as success. In many cases these concepts are conflicting. In this complex context talking about optimizing outcomes is probably unrealistic. What we are seeing is progress on many disconnected fronts. That is probably the best we can hope for. The notion of somehow globally optimizing governance is particularly problematic. David Wojick Inside Public Access On Jun 26, 2020, at 3:54 PM, Glenn Hampson wrote: I’ll conclude and sign off as well. My reply to this approach, again with all due respect, is that the *only* way to arrive at the proper “principles, governance structures, infrastructures, communities, and more that will be needed to create the optimal conditions for scholarship to be communicated and used around the world,” is to first understand this space better. We can’t just declare that we’re done listening and plow ahead with “solutions” without regard for impact or consequences. Of course, if we’re of the mindset that this search for common ground is just a waste of time or some subterfuge bent on delaying open, then we’re not likely to embrace this approach. But if we can get past this trust issue (which is a big *if*), then it’s clear that the benefits of working together and the future we can create by working together are vastly superior to the kind of open future we arrive at by working alone. Best regards---good weekend as well (or as we say here in Seattle, please don’t rain again), Glenn Glenn Hampson Executive Director Science Communication Institute (SCI) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) From: Kathleen Shearer Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 11:35 AM To: Glenn Hampson Cc: David Wojick ; Rob Johnson ; Heather Morrison ; scholcomm ; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk; The Open Scholarship Initiative ; Anis Rahman Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models Hi all, I don’t want to waste too much time going in circles, so just a short response: The resources below are different ways of conceptualizing open, not really definitions. They contribute to a deeper understanding of the concept of open, which is a good thing. The knowledge commons is a different issue, and it is what we should be addressing at this stage of maturity in the transition to open. This includes the principles, governance structures, infrastructures, communities, and more that will be needed to create the optimal conditions for scholarship to be communicated and used around the world. If we get bogged down in a discussion of definitions, we will never get anywhere (but I suspect that "going nowhere" is in the interest of certain parties) Anyway, bon weekend! (as they say here in Quebec) Kathleen On Jun 26, 2020, at 2:08 PM, Glenn Hampson wrote: In part David, yes---thank you. But I’m also referring to: Knoth and Pontika’s Open Science Taxonomy (https://figshare.com/articles/Open_Science_Taxonomy/1508606/3 Fecher and Friesike’s categories of concern regarding open (http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2272036) Moore’s boundary object observations (http://doi.org/10.4000/rfsic.3220) Willen’s intersecting movements critique (https://rmwblogg.wordpress.com/2020/02/29/justice-oriented-science-open-science-and-replicable-science-are-overlapping-but-they-are-not-the-same/) Bosman & Kramer’s diversity of definitions assessment (https://im2punt0.wordpress.com/2017/03/27/defining-open-science-definitions/) OSI’s DARTS open spectrum (https://journals.gmu.edu/index.php/osi/article/view/1375/1178) Tkacz’s 2012 essay on the connections between the modern open science movement and Karl Popper’s open society theories (http://www.ephemerajournal.org/sites/default/files/12-4tkacz_0.pdf) And more. Best, Glenn Glenn Hampson Executive Director Science Communication Institute (SCI) Program Director Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 10:30 AM To: Kathleen Shearer Cc: Glenn Hampson ; Rob Johnson ; Heather Morrison ; scholc...@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) ; ; The Open Scholarship Initiative ; Anis Rahman Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models Glenn is drawing upon lengthy discussions of the problem of multiple definitions that we have had at OSI. Looking back I find that I first wrote about this issue seven years ago: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/11/11/open-access-on-the-sea-of-confusion/ It might be better to call them concepts or models than definitions, but it remains that different people are calling for or allowing very different things as being open access. At one extreme we have, for e
