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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected], 217-333-1323 (v), 217-244-4358 (f) > > > > From: David Wojick <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 2:41 PM > To: Hinchliffe, Lisa W <[email protected]> > Cc: Glenn Hampson <[email protected]>; 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 > > 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
