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 <[email protected]> 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) <image001.jpg> From: Kathleen Shearer <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 11:35 AM To: Glenn Hampson <[email protected]> Cc: David Wojick <[email protected]>; Rob Johnson <[email protected]>; Heather Morrison <[email protected]>; scholcomm <[email protected]>; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; The Open Scholarship Initiative <[email protected]>; Anis Rahman <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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) <image001.jpg> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 10:30 AM To: Kathleen Shearer <[email protected]> Cc: Glenn Hampson <[email protected]>; Rob Johnson <[email protected]>; Heather Morrison <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <[email protected]>; Anis Rahman <[email protected]> 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 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 pieces of information to ensure our efforts are evidence-based; Embrace diversity. No one group has a perfect understanding of the needs and challenges in this space, and different groups have different needs and challenges. Develop big picture agreement on the goals ahead and common ground approaches to meet these goals; and Help build UNESCO’s global open roadmap. Best regards, 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 Rob Johnson Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 11:42 PM To: Heather Morrison <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Anis Rahman <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models Dear Heather (and Anis), Thanks for sharing this. I’ve also found Ostrom’s work on the commons helpful in assessing some of the emerging issues in this area, and you might be interested to read an article I wrote on Plan S and the commons, which also references Ostrom’s principles. I reached very similar conclusions to you, arguing that there would be a need for ‘polycentricity’ and ‘adaptative governance’ for the Plan to succeed – echoing your observations on the value of collective choice, adaptation to local conditions and ‘nested enterprises’. Johnson, Rob. 2019. “From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication”. Insights 32 (1): 5. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.453 Best wishes, Rob Rob Johnson Director <image001.png> Follow us on Twitter @rschconsulting T: +44(0)115 896 7567 M: +44(0)779 511 7737 E: [email protected] W: www.research-consulting.com Registered office: The Ingenuity Centre, University of Nottingham Innovation Park, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, United Kingdom Research Consulting Limited is a Company Registered in England and Wales, Reg No. 8376797 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This communication and the information contained in it are confidential and may be legally privileged. The content is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorised to receive it. If you are not the intended recipient, it is hereby brought to your notice that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or dissemination, or alternatively the taking of any action in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may constitute grounds for action, either civil or criminal. From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Heather Morrison Sent: 26 June 2020 01:16 To: [email protected]; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Anis Rahman <[email protected]> Subject: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models Abstract: The context of this paper is an analysis of three emerging models for developing a global knowledge commons. The concept of a ‘global knowledge commons’ builds on the vision of the original Budapest Open Access Initiative (2002) for the potential of combining academic tradition and the internet to remove various access barriers to the scholarly literature, thus laying the foundation for an unprecedented public good, uniting humanity in a common quest for knowledge. The global knowledge commons is a universal sharing of the knowledge of humankind, free for all to access (recognizing reasons for limiting sharing in some circumstances such as to protect individual privacy), and free for everyone qualified to contribute to. The three models are Plan S / cOAlition S, an EU-led initiative to transition all of scholarly publishing to an open access model on a short timeline; the Global Sustainability Coalition for Open Science Services (SCOSS), a recent initiative that builds on Ostrom’s study of the commons; and PubMedCentral (PMC) International, building on the preservation and access to the medical research literature provided by the U.S. National Institutes of Health to support other national repositories of funded research and exchange of materials between regions. The research will involve analysis of official policy and background briefing documents on the three initiatives and relevant historical projects, such as the Research Council U.K.’s block grants for article processing charges, the EU-led OA2020 initiative, Europe PMC and the short-lived PMC-Canada. Theoretical analysis will draw on Ostrom’s work on the commons, theories of development, under-development, epistemic / knowledge inequity and the concepts of Chan and colleagues (2011) on the importance of moving beyond north-to-south access to knowledge (charity model) to include south-to-south and south-to-north (equity model). This model analysis contributes to build a comparative view of transcontinental efforts for a global knowledge commons building with shared values of open access, sharing and collaboration, in contrast to the growing trend of commodification of scholarly knowledge evident in both traditional subscriptions / purchase-based scholarly publishing and in commercial open access publishing. We anticipate that our findings will indicate that a digital world of inclusiveness and reciprocity is possible, but cannot be taken for granted, and policy support is crucial. Global communication and information policy have much to contribute towards the development of a sustainable global knowledge commons. Full text: https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/40664 Cite as: Morrison, H. & Rahman, R. (2020). Knowledge and equity: analysis of three models. International Association of Communication and Media Researchers (IAMCR) annual conference, July 2020. Comments are welcome, either on list or on the blog: https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2020/06/26/knowledge-and-equity-analysis-of-three-models/ best, Dr. Heather Morrison Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa Cross-appointed, Department of Communication Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight Project sustainingknowledgecommons.org [email protected] https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] -- As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/7A571C59-F365-4C9A-BF73-BC9533D6F4FD%40gmail.com. -- As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/010501d64beb%243dfe92e0%24b9fbb8a0%24%40nationalscience.org.
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
