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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected], 217-333-1323 (v), 217-244-4358 (f) > > > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on > behalf of David Wojick <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:04 PM > To: Glenn Hampson <[email protected]> > Cc: Thatcher, Sanford Gray <[email protected]>; Kathleen Shearer > <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > <[email protected]>; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM >> To: Thatcher, Sanford Gray <[email protected]> >> Cc: Kathleen Shearer <[email protected]>; >> [email protected]; [email protected]; Global Open Access >> List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]>; Glenn Hampson >> <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] <[email protected]> on >> behalf of Glenn Hampson <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM >> To: 'Kathleen Shearer' <[email protected]>; >> [email protected] <[email protected]>; >> [email protected] <[email protected]>; 'Global Open Access List >> (Successor of AmSci)' <[email protected]> >> Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly >> Communications: A Call for Action >> >> Hi Kathleen, Richard, >> Can I suggest another way to look at these questions? First some background. >> As you know, the Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today >> (http://plan-a.world). Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action plan, representing >> five years of deep thinking that OSI participants have invested in the many >> questions related to the future of scholarly communication reform. >> Plan A looks at the “bibliodiversity” challenge a little differently. For >> OSI, diversity has also meant inclusion---listening to everyone’s ideas >> (including publishers), valuing everyone’s input, trying to develop a >> complete understanding of the scholarly communication landscape, and trying >> to reach a point where we can work together on common ground toward goals >> that serve all of us. >> We have found over the course of our work that most everyone in the >> scholarly communication community recognizes the same challenges on the road >> ahead, we all have the same needs, and we all suffer from the same inability >> to see the full picture ourselves and to make change by ourselves. >> Fulfilling the vision of bibliodiversity will mean valuing everyone’s >> perspective of and contribution to the scholarly communication system, and >> truly working together across our real and perceived divides to achieve, >> together, what is in the best interest of research and society. >> OSI’s common ground paper provides a deeper look at this common ground and >> some of the approaches suggested by OSI participants. The summary version >> will be published soon by Emerald Open; for now, the full-length version is >> available under the resources tab of the Plan A website. >> My short answer to your questions, Richard, about practical matters like how >> all this change is going to transpire and through what mechanisms, is that >> for us, this needs to be decided by Plan A signatories (and will be). This >> effort is designed to tie into UNESCO’s ongoing open science roadmap work >> (which OSI is helping with). UNESCO’s plan will be presented to the UN in >> late 2021. The longer answer is that the real value in this conversation >> will come as we “expand the pie.” This isn’t about looking for compromise >> positions between read-only access and read-reuse, or between zero and >> 6-month embargo periods. It’s about truly working together on common >> interests, and thinking through issues in a way we haven’t before as a >> community (in a large-scale, diverse, high level, policy-oriented sense). >> I expect our efforts will cross paths in the years ahead, Kathleen. We would >> be honored to collaborate and contribute to your work. >> Best regards to you both, >> Glenn >> >> Glenn Hampson >> Executive Director >> Science Communication Institute (SCI) >> Program Director >> Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) >> <image004.jpg> >> >> >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On >> Behalf Of Kathleen Shearer (via scholcomm Mailing List) >> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 6:12 AM >> To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Global Open >> Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly >> Communications: A Call for Action >> >> Hello Richard, >> >> Yes, indeed, you are right, the coordinated actions required for >> bibliodiversity are similar to the efforts needed to deal with the covid19 >> pandemic. >> >> For your second question, the way I am envisioning the collaborations taking >> place is as follows: much of the discussions across the different >> stakeholder communities will happen at the national and sometimes regional >> level, while the international coordination will take place, in parallel, >> within each different stakeholder community. Although not a perfect >> solution, because some countries are more cohesive than others, many >> communities already have fairly strong regional and international >> relationships with their peers, including scholarly societies, libraries, >> funders (e.g. the funders forum at RDA), governments, as well as publishers, >> and repositories. >> >> >> 1. Are translation technologies adequate to the task envisaged for >> them in the document? >> >> >> I’m not an expert on translation technologies, but my colleagues tell me >> that for some languages the technologies are quite far along already and >> work well (e.g. Spanish, French, Portuguese, Chinese), for others it will >> take a bit longer. They are suggesting a timeline for most languages to have >> fairly good translation tools available within the next 5 years. >> >> >> 3. Might it be that the different interests and priorities of these >> stakeholders are such that joint action is not possible, certainly in a way >> that would satisfy all the stakeholders? After all, funders got involved >> with open access because after 20+ years the other stakeholders had failed >> to work together effectively. However, in doing so, these funders appear >> (certainly in Europe) to be pushing the world in a direction that the >> authors of this report deprecate. What, practically, can the movement do to >> achieve the aspirations of the document beyond making a call to action or >> further declarations? >> >> The point of this call to action is to raise awareness with funders and >> others about this important issue. I’m not so cynical to think >> organizational perspectives can never change. Strategies can (and should) >> evolve as we gain a better understanding of the landscape, and adopt new >> ideas and principles. We hope that this call to action will have that type >> of impact. >> >> And, yes of course not all interests will align, but we are already seeing >> more cohesiveness at the national level than in the past. In Canada, where I >> am based, for example, the funders, libraries and local Canadian publishers >> are now in regular dialogue and collaborating to work on common action items >> and to better align policies, funding and infrastructure. This is also >> happening in other jurisdictions such as France with its Committee for Open >> Science and Portugal where the national funder, universities (including >> libraries and university presses) and scholarly societies have created and >> maintain a national infrastructure for Open Access (hosting repositories and >> journals) and aligned policies. >> >> >> All the best, >> Kathleen >> >> >> Kathleen Shearer >> Executive Director >> Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) >> www.coar-repositories.org >> >> >> >> >> On Apr 16, 2020, at 1:31 AM, Richard Poynder <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> “Designing a system that fosters bibliodiversity, while also supporting >> research at the international level is extremely challenging. It means >> achieving a careful balance between unity and diversity; international and >> local; and careful coordination across different stakeholder communities and >> regions in order to avoid a fragmented ecosystem.” >> >> That seems to me to be a key paragraph in this document. And the pandemic — >> which requires that information is shared very quickly and broadly, and >> across borders — does certainly highlight the fact that the current >> scholarly communication system leaves a lot to be desired. >> >> I have three questions: >> >> 1. Are translation technologies adequate to the task envisaged for >> them in the document? >> >> 2. How is it envisaged that researchers, policymakers, funders, >> service providers, universities and libraries from around the world will all >> work together, and by means of what forum? I know there are a number of >> organisations and initiatives focused on the different issues raised in the >> document (not least COAR) but how exactly, and by what means, will these >> different stakeholders coordinate and work together to achieve the stated >> aims? I know there are a number of library-led organisations (like COAR), >> but is not a more diverse forum (in terms of the different stakeholders) >> needed? How many members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S for >> instance? >> >> 3. Might it be that the different interests and priorities of these >> stakeholders are such that joint action is not possible, certainly in a way >> that would satisfy all the stakeholders? After all, funders got involved >> with open access because after 20+ years the other stakeholders had failed >> to work together effectively. However, in doing so, these funders appear >> (certainly in Europe) to be pushing the world in a direction that the >> authors of this report deprecate. What, practically, can the movement do to >> achieve the aspirations of the document beyond making a call to action or >> further declarations? >> >> Richard Poynder >> >> >> On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 15:53, Kathleen Shearer <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> (Apologies for the cross posting) >> Dear all, >> Today, my colleagues and I are issuing a “Call for Action!” >> With the publication of this paper, Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly >> Communications: A Call for Action, we are calling on the community to make >> concerted efforts to develop strong, community-governed infrastructures that >> support diversity in scholarly communications (referred to as >> bibliodiversity). >> Diversity is an essential characteristic of an optimal scholarly >> communications system. Diversity in services and platforms, funding >> mechanisms, and evaluation measures will allow the research communications >> to accommodate the different workflows, languages, publication outputs, and >> research topics that support the needs and epistemic pluralism of different >> research communities. In addition, diversity reduces the risk of vendor >> lock-in, which inevitably leads to monopoly, monoculture, and high prices. >> We are living through unprecedented times, with a global pandemic sweeping >> the world, leading to illness, death, and unparalleled economic upheaval. >> Although our concerns about bibliodiversity have been growing for years, the >> current crisis has exposed the deficiencies in a system that is increasingly >> homogenous and prioritizes profits over the public good. >> Stories abound about the urgent need for access to the research literature, >> as illustrated, for example, by this message by Peter Murray-Rust posted to >> the GOAL mailing list on March 31, 2020 >> “My colleague, a software developer, working for free on openVirus software, >> is spending most of his time working making masks in Cambridge Makespace to >> ship to Addenbrooke’s hospital. When he goes to the literature to find >> literature on masks, their efficacy and use and construction he finds >> paywall after paywall after paywall after paywall ….” >> For those who were not in favour of open access before, this global crisis >> should settle the debate once and for all. >> We must move away from a pay-to-read world in which researchers, >> practitioners and the public cannot afford to access critical research >> materials, or have to wait for embargo periods to lift before they can >> develop life saving techniques, methods and vaccines. Access to the research >> is simply too important. Yet, pay-to-publish, the open access model being >> advanced by many in the commercial sector, is also inappropriate as it >> places unacceptable financial barriers on researchers’ abilities to publish. >> It is time to reassess some of the basic assumptions related to scholarly >> communications, including competition, prestige, and the role of commercial >> entities. The same values that underlie our research and education systems >> should also guide research communications. >> To that end, we are calling on researchers, policy makers, funders, service >> providers, universities and libraries from around the world to work together >> to address the issue of bibliodiversity in scholarly communication. >> The problems we encounter have never been more complex and urgent, nor has >> the need for solutions been greater. There is a real danger that new budget >> constraints and an increasing proportion of funds directed towards large >> commercial entities could lead to greater homogeneity and monopolization, >> further hampering the free flow of research needed to address the critical >> challenges we face. >> Read the blog post here and full paper here >> >> Kathleen Shearer >> Executive Director >> Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR) >> www.coar-repositories.org >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Richard Poynder
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
