draft guide for open access research

14 views
Skip to first unread message

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 14, 2020, 8:39:22 PM1/14/20
to The Open Scholarship Initiative

Regarding publishing a guide for conducting research in scholarly communication,* here’s a very drafty version of what we’ve discussed so far or that has been suggested off-list. Is there anything else? On- and off-list suggestions are welcome:

 

1.                   Don’t use Beall’s list when conducting research into predatory publishing (on a related note, “deceptive” publishing is a more accurate name; on another related note, don’t define “predatory” as the authors did here---  https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03759-y#ref-CR4 --- this is NOT an expert analysis).

2.                   Don’t call something “open access” unless you mean free, immediate, CC-BY licensed materials. Everything else is just a type of open found on the open spectrum.

3.                   Use the right figures when talking about how much open exists. Eric Archambault’s work is the most definitive and recent in this regard. Around 50% of all materials currently published are born open; this rate is increasing organically, as well as due to the volume of materials that are constantly coming off embargo. This said, this figure varies by discipline, institution, region, etc. Also, somewhere around only 16% (by memory) of material being published today meets the strict definition of “open access.” So, it’s important to explain what we’re fighting for and/or complaining about.

4.                   Don’t generalize from one specific kind of research to all research. A recent study purporting to show the impact of research on society didn’t specify what kind of research---the insinuation was “all” research (and impact was described for education, policy, etc.), but only one kind of research was actually measured (the kind of research with clear policy ends).  Also, note that “impact” is broader than the REF guidelines describe, which doesn’t even include (strangely?) impact on research itself.

5.                   Impact and impact factor are not synonymous; impact factor is a specific mathematical measure that is licensed by Clarivate

6.                   Actual peer review is a specific and often complicated process (explain in detail); it is not synonymous with “review.” This issue arises when an article is cited as being from a peer-reviewed journal, but that journal’s concept of peer review is actually just copyediting.

7.                   Different indexes are different---Scopus has a different product concentration that WoS, which is different than DOAJ, and so on. Be careful comparing samples between different indexes since you may get different concentrations of natural science journals, etc. That is, for instance, don’t conclude that since x% of journals in Scopus are open, that therefore x% of ALL journals are open. Also, don’t conclude that just because an article is “indexed” it must be legitimate---there are many regional and subject-specific indexes that serve no gatekeeping function whatsoever, while other indexes are gatekeepers.

8.                   Don’t cherry-pick the data. The open access citation index, for instance, is an evolving measure (sometimes strong, sometimes not, depending on methodology). The most recent work suggests that hybrid and bronze have higher citation impacts than gold and green, but we aren’t 100% certain yet. Similarly, we know nothing rigorous and definitive about whether a global flip to APC is possible (financially), whether zero embargos will have zero impact, and much more. On these questions and many others (which we can spell out—suggestions welcome), more research is needed. It’s best to say this and be scientific about our research in this field rather than fashion our “research” around a conclusion.

9.                   Stay in your lane. Don’t carry on about issues on the emotional perimeter of open research--- “profit margins,” for instance. Researcher bias is created and revealed by taking sides---by deciding beforehand which data and viewpoints are “acceptable.”

10.               Use primary sources only for data. With very limited exceptions (like the annual STM report), secondary source reports in this space are very susceptible to misrepresentation (since opinions in this space are so polarized).

 

*or more specifically, for research into open access and related issues---not necessarily all the way out to all university-related issues, and not necessarily including common research recommendations like making sure your stats are adequately powered

Richard Gedye

unread,
Jan 15, 2020, 2:55:19 PM1/15/20
to The Open Scholarship Initiative

Just for the record, the STM Report is not an annual publication. It is published every 3 years. The latest (2018) edition can be found here.

 

Richard

--
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 osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/01bc01d5cb44%249a5760d0%24cf062270%24%40nationalscience.org.

Joyce Ogburn

unread,
Jan 15, 2020, 3:11:04 PM1/15/20
to Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative
What is the purpose of this guide? Who is it for? Formally sponsored OSI research or anyone's research in topics of scholarly communication? What is bias or leanings of the guide? Do we have a working definition of conducting research in scholarly communication? Are we restricting a community of researchers regarding what one calls OA regardess of their research topics or measures? Who determined that profit margins are restricted area of research because its on an "emotional periphery"? What is the meaning of the last one -  Use primary sources only for data - that primary sources are only good for data or that good data can only come from primary sources? Depends on your research, doesn't it?

Joyce

Joyce L. Ogburn
Principal, Farview Insights
@libjoyce

Lifelong learning requires lifelong access 


Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 15, 2020, 4:18:26 PM1/15/20
to Joyce Ogburn, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Hi Joyce,

 

The answer to all of your questions is that this is still very much a work in progress. The genesis of this idea came from a discussion on this list a few months back when we realized that it might be helpful to give researchers in the open space a little more guidance with respect to certain often misinterpreted facts about open. For instance, almost every research paper uses the words “open” and “open access” interchangeably, which leads to massive confusion when it comes to trying to identify how fast “open” is growing (some authors, like Eric Archambault, take time to explain what they mean by open and to break their data down by different kinds of open; many don’t, though). We’ve also seen a number of researchers parachute into this field and try to write about predatory publishing, using Beall’s list as some sort of definitive/objective/accepted measure (which it isn’t). There are other nuances as well that might be helpful to spell out.

 

This guide might be well-received by new researchers who’d like to delve into this field; it will probably be roundly ridiculed by a few established researchers who already see their work as quite objective enough, thank you, and see all this talk about open spectrums and such as being the real bias. So there’s that. The point is to try to encourage a research environment in this field where our results can be more objective and more comparable (the part about gratuitous mention of “profit margins” is just one example of how some researchers bias themselves and their readers by making it clear that they are favoring certain outcomes---be these anti-publisher or anti-OA).

 

With regard to primary sources, a lot of us tend to get our talking points (profit margins, growth rates, etc.) from summaries and not from the original research articles, which is fine for discussion but not for research. These summaries are often quite tilted, which is no surprise since this field is so polarized. So, for example, if a researcher is going to state in a paper that Africa has plenty of money to support a flip to APC, please cite the study/data showing this to be the case and not the blog post saying this is the case. We have many areas of soft foundation in scholcomm---it would help all of us to shore these up (including conducting new studies where needed---on our to-do list).

 

Does this answer your questions? Again, this is a work in progress---still very drafty.

 

Thanks Joyce,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

OSI-logo-email-sm2

image001.jpg

Danny Kingsley

unread,
Jan 15, 2020, 7:01:04 PM1/15/20
to Glenn Hampson, Joyce Ogburn, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Hi Glenn,

Aren’t you just referring to normal expected academic practice when you state:

if a researcher is going to state in a paper that Africa has plenty of money to support a flip to APC, please cite the study/data showing this to be the case and not the blog post saying this is the case. 

Unless the blog post was the only source of information - such as some of the blogs we published at Cambridge about our activities (although they always linked out to their sources whenever claims or other studies were referred to) - you would always be going to the primary source and citing that?

Danny

On 16 Jan 2020, at 07:18, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

Hi Joyce,
 
The answer to all of your questions is that this is still very much a work in progress. The genesis of this idea came from a discussion on this list a few months back when we realized that it might be helpful to give researchers in the open space a little more guidance with respect to certain often misinterpreted facts about open. For instance, almost every research paper uses the words “open” and “open access” interchangeably, which leads to massive confusion when it comes to trying to identify how fast “open” is growing (some authors, like Eric Archambault, take time to explain what they mean by open and to break their data down by different kinds of open; many don’t, though). We’ve also seen a number of researchers parachute into this field and try to write about predatory publishing, using Beall’s list as some sort of definitive/objective/accepted measure (which it isn’t). There are other nuances as well that might be helpful to spell out.
 
This guide might be well-received by new researchers who’d like to delve into this field; it will probably be roundly ridiculed by a few established researchers who already see their work as quite objective enough, thank you, and see all this talk about open spectrums and such as being the real bias. So there’s that. The point is to try to encourage a research environment in this field where our results can be more objective and more comparable (the part about gratuitous mention of “profit margins” is just one example of how some researchers bias themselves and their readers by making it clear that they are favoring certain outcomes---be these anti-publisher or anti-OA).
 
With regard to primary sources, a lot of us tend to get our talking points (profit margins, growth rates, etc.) from summaries and not from the original research articles, which is fine for discussion but not for research. These summaries are often quite tilted, which is no surprise since this field is so polarized. So, for example, if a researcher is going to state in a paper that Africa has plenty of money to support a flip to APC, please cite the study/data showing this to be the case and not the blog post saying this is the case. We have many areas of soft foundation in scholcomm---it would help all of us to shore these up (including conducting new studies where needed---on our to-do list).
 
Does this answer your questions? Again, this is a work in progress---still very drafty.
 
Thanks Joyce,
 
Glenn
 
 
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

Dr Danny Kingsley
Scholarly Communication Consultant
e: da...@dannykingsley.com
m: +61 (0)480 115 937
t:@dannykay68
o: 0000-0002-3636-5939

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 15, 2020, 8:06:30 PM1/15/20
to Danny Kingsley, Joyce Ogburn, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Hi Danny,

 

Right, and this is where I don’t want to sound (or be) condescending. Specific examples would help---I’ll try to dig some up. I know you used to publish lots of great stuff in your Cambridge blog---that’s not at all what I had in mind. Rather, it’s the sort of “facts” that get repeated and passed down uncritically like a game of telephone tag. Our community has separated into separate camps in part because one camp believes it has truth on its side, and believes the other camp is misinformed, evil, or some combination of both. In fact, what’s often happening in our cross-camp conversations is that we’re just using different vocabularies and/or spinning the same facts differently. The open access citation advantage is probably a good example here. The early data was pretty shoddy, but it showed a spectacularly large OACA. Later data showed a much more modest bump (or no bump at all in some analyses), but you’ll still see some researchers either say there’s a huge citation advantage, or not mention data that shows there isn’t.

 

I’d appreciate everyone’s help criticizing this point or supporting it---I’m fine either way. In the meantime I’ll try to dig up some specific examples---hopefully that will help. Reading multiple papers per week for five years, it all kind of blends together so hopefully I’ll be able to dig up something helpful 😊

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

OSI-logo-email-sm2

image001.jpg

Joyce Ogburn

unread,
Jan 15, 2020, 9:43:54 PM1/15/20
to Glenn Hampson, Danny Kingsley, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative
I think there is a difference between conducting and publishing research, which is what I took the brief to cover, and presenting arguments or points of view in other venues or for other purposes. That’s one reason I asked about the questions about the purpose and definition. 

All fields repeat or perpetuates discredited or retracted or otherwise disputed information. Disagreements and potentially legitimate differences abound. So in this regard I may echo Danny in saying that some of the brief is covering best practices in research, professional work, etc. If OSI aims to be consistent in its official work and briefings that could be more controllable or influentialable (is that a word?) but we don’t always agree among ourselves either. We an still strive for it but recommending practices beyond OSI may not be a worthwhile endeavor unless it truly transcends already known and accepted practices. 

Joyce

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 15, 2020, at 8:06 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:



Hi Danny,

 

Right, and this is where I don’t want to sound (or be) condescending. Specific examples would help---I’ll try to dig some up. I know you used to publish lots of great stuff in your Cambridge blog---that’s not at all what I had in mind. Rather, it’s the sort of “facts” that get repeated and passed down uncritically like a game of telephone tag. Our community has separated into separate camps in part because one camp believes it has truth on its side, and believes the other camp is misinformed, evil, or some combination of both. In fact, what’s often happening in our cross-camp conversations is that we’re just using different vocabularies and/or spinning the same facts differently. The open access citation advantage is probably a good example here. The early data was pretty shoddy, but it showed a spectacularly large OACA. Later data showed a much more modest bump (or no bump at all in some analyses), but you’ll still see some researchers either say there’s a huge citation advantage, or not mention data that shows there isn’t.

 

I’d appreciate everyone’s help criticizing this point or supporting it---I’m fine either way. In the meantime I’ll try to dig up some specific examples---hopefully that will help. Reading multiple papers per week for five years, it all kind of blends together so hopefully I’ll be able to dig up something helpful 😊

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

Anthony Watkinson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 6:03:31 AM1/16/20
to Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Glenn and Richard

 

I am glad as a co-author of the STM Report that you found it reliable. That is the idea. There is no official schedule and we do not currently know whether it will be ever revised. I hope it will.

 

Anthony

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 11:50:33 AM1/16/20
to Joyce Ogburn, Danny Kingsley, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Thanks for the education Joyce---I wasn’t aware of this. I agree with your take (and Danny’s). In these other fields where differences of opinion exist, though, how many of these differences are driven by science (interpreting data differently, not being satisfied with the completeness of the explanation, etc.) versus---in our case---being driven by opinion? I’ll try to recall some examples today, but the practice I’m trying to call out is where the hypothesis seems to be a conclusion (e.g., publishing is evil), and then the data and analysis are twisted around that conclusion, rather than the hypothesis being something more neutral. This of course isn’t a best research practice, but is this kind of practice unique to scholcomm? I read somewhere that it’s also happening in gender studies?

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

OSI-logo-email-sm2

image001.jpg

Rick Anderson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 12:06:21 PM1/16/20
to Glenn Hampson, Joyce Ogburn, Danny Kingsley, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

> the practice I’m trying to call out is where the hypothesis seems to be a conclusion

> (e.g., publishing is evil), and then the data and analysis are twisted around that

> conclusion, rather than the hypothesis being something more neutral.

 

I think this is a constant risk whenever science and social programs intersect: in that context, it’s especially hard not to look at data through the lens of one’s personal views of what’s right and wrong with society. I think this goes beyond run-of-the-mill confirmation bias, which can lead you to more or less unconsciously embrace data that conform with your expectations and to discount data that goes against them. We deal with confirmation bias all the time, including in every scholarly/scientific context. But when we’re talking about the intersection of science and social agendas in particular, it seems to me like there’s a more conscious and intensive tendency to derogate (or even shout down) data that undermines one’s ideological perspective. Unless we’re super careful, “is” questions and “should” questions can get fatally entangled in these contexts. (And to be clear, I think this is an issue across the ideological terrain; it’s a human problem, not exclusively a problem of the Left, Right, or Middle.)

 

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

rick.a...@utah.edu

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 1:51:09 PM1/16/20
to Rick Anderson, Joyce Ogburn, Danny Kingsley, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Brilliant---thank you Rick. I’d forgotten all about this term. I’m going to drop my “investigation” then---it’s kinda’ exhausting. I’ll kick this brief around some more and get back to the group with a more developed draft.

image002.jpg
image004.jpg

JJE Esposito

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 1:59:30 PM1/16/20
to Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative
I'm looking at the embedded "rules for radicals," and wonder about the wisdom of #2: only use the term OA for CC-BY material. That's a loser, sorry. Language is as it does. If you want to preserve a specific meaning, you have to trademark the term. I had this argument with Stevan Harnad 20 years ago. The OA horse left the barn a long time ago.

I will continue to use the term OA as almost everybody does in practice, meaning no cost to access. 

Joe Esposito



--
Joseph J. Esposito
espo...@gmail.com
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 2:14:10 PM1/16/20
to JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Um…okay. That’s just being part of the problem though. The advocacy community normally defines OA as being derived from BOAI, and BOAI specifies that OA is free to read AND reuse (it’s silent on immediacy). Further, the definition favored by most groups pushing for OA today includes a swath of other conditions such as immediacy, proper repository, etc. Saying that the free-to-read papers in PubMedCentral are “open access” is totally confusing---they’re mostly just free to read (most are licensed under traditional copyright)---and part of the problem we’re facing when we’re talking about goals in this space, as well as barriers, progress, etc. Scott’s OSI brief on “What do we mean by open?” has settled this issue for OSI: http://osiglobal.org/2018/11/15/osi-brief-what-do-we-mean-by-open/ ---  hopefully anyway.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

Rick Anderson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 2:23:12 PM1/16/20
to Glenn Hampson, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

But the problem is that while settling the issue of how OSI defines OA is good and valuable, the issue remains unsettled outside of OSI. 20 years after BOAI, you still can’t assume that when two people say “open access,” they’re referring to the same set of characteristics.

 

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

rick.a...@utah.edu

 

T Scott Plutchak

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 3:08:10 PM1/16/20
to Glenn Hampson, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Sorry Glenn, but Brief #1 does not say that OA should only be used in the way you specify.  When describing some of the variations in terminology it states that "Perhaps the earliest, and most specific, definition was developed by the Budapest Open Access Initiative…” but nowhere does it say that this is the preferred OSI usage.  Indeed, under Research Required, it says "Systematic review focusing on the different ways in which the terms open, open access, open data, etc., are used, as a basis for developing a shared glossary or standardized terminology that different initiatives can refer to. There is still considerable variation in how these terms are used” (emphasis added).  When the subject came up during the monthly Summit Group discussions of 2018, the consensus of the group was always that OSI should not adopt a restrictive definition of OA but should rely on the Open Spectrum to recognize the wide variations in terminology.  I was surprised the first time I saw you state that OSI’s position was to restrict the usage of the term because that did not come out of the Summit Group discussions.

Scott

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 3:25:11 PM1/16/20
to T Scott Plutchak, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Hi Scott,

You’re correct that we punted on making this explicit distinction back in 2018. On its own, however, the open spectrum (not open access spectrum) implies this distinction---i.e., there are many different kinds of open. Since then, I have routinely described that what we refer to as “open access” is just one type of open on the spectrum (more or less located on the far right end). Your report doesn’t endorse this stance explicitly, but it also deliberately leaves the door open for this interpretation:

The DART framework recognizes “that openness has a number of dimensions and can be conceptualized as a spectrum, rather than at a single defined point.” It identifies “a baseline set of attributes that constitute what the scholarly community currently views as being the minimum requirements for ‘open.’”

In 2017, OSI’s Standards, Norms and Best Practices workgroup report added sustainability to the framework and emphasized that the DARTS framework can be applied to more scholarly outputs than just peer reviewed articles (see OSI 2017). The DARTS open spectrum uses the term “open” in order to avoid confusion with existing definitions of open access, better understand the full range of open products, and allow for recognizing OA as a specific point or range on a spectrum.

I think it’s time now for us to consider making this distinction official. We’ve already described what we mean---we just haven’t officially said it in so many words. Part of our reluctance has been that we don’t want to be seen as moving the goalposts. But we aren’t. What we’re trying to explain is that “open” and “open access” should not, ideally, be used interchangeably, not because of any ideological subterfuge but because doing so results in our community talking across each other.

Best,

Glenn

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

OSI-logo-email-sm2

 

 

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of T Scott Plutchak
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 12:08 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>

image001.jpg

Rick Anderson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 3:30:00 PM1/16/20
to Glenn Hampson, T Scott Plutchak, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

> I think it’s time now for us to consider making this distinction official. We’ve

> already described what we mean---we just haven’t officially said it in so many words.

 

Just to be clear on this, Glenn – are you suggesting it’s time for us explicitly adopt a provisional definition of open access (“this is what OSI is referring to when it says ‘open access’”) or are you saying it’s time for us to _endorse_ a specific definition of open access as the correct one?

 

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

rick.a...@utah.edu

 

JJE Esposito

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 3:38:39 PM1/16/20
to Glenn Hampson, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative
You are missing my point. I don't want confusion any more than anyone else. I am saying that you can't say "OA" and expect people to conform. If you want to say BOAI OA, and TM it, then you can avoid confusion. The term "OA" is like "Webster" in dictionaries, and anyone can use it. Intellectual property protects ideas, but "OA" in itself is not protectable.

Joe Esposito

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 3:41:41 PM1/16/20
to Rick Anderson, T Scott Plutchak, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Neither---sorry for the confusion Rick. I think it’s time to say that “open access” is a state of open that exists on the open spectrum (see attached), something we haven’t done yet in so many words. Where exactly it’s placed is a matter of debate—probably near the far right end. Again, this is implied anyway (given that the BOAI definition of OA requires reuse, and given that the consensus use of OA generally implies other right-leaning conditions---good discoverability, good transparency, etc.). Doing this will allow us to acknowledge this important gap in our language and allow institutions aspiring to create more open content to better understand, at a glance, exactly what this entails.

image003.jpg
open-spectrum.pdf

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 4:35:27 PM1/16/20
to JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Hi Joe,

 

We’re crossing emails here, but just to reframe what I suggested to Rick, I’m not proposing that OSI create and trademark a new definition from whole cloth. Rather, I’m suggesting we acknowledge what we already know to be the case---that there’s an open spectrum, and that “open access” is a part of this spectrum (at least as OA is defined most advocates). Researchers are generally sloppier than advocates, and will, for instance, call PubMedCentral materials OA when they aren’t---they’re just free to read materials. Advocates, on the other hand, generally insist that BOAI is the foundational definition of OA.

 

This may all seem like a tempest in a teapot but it really does matter, not only to help clean up research in this field, but also to help the different camps of the open advocacy community communicate more effectively. When I say to Heather Joseph that OSI is working hard to improve open, she probably rolls her eyes; but if she understood that our sense of open is broader than hers, then it would be clearer that we’re both on the same page. She’s just working for one particular kind of open. My hope is that by at least getting on the same page, we can then work together and discuss which kinds of open are better for which circumstances, where the gaps exist in open progress and why, and so on. We might not be willing/able to work together to improve open access, but there’s a world of improvement that can happen with open, from getting more materials on the spectrum to moving them closer to OA where possible.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

OSI-logo-email-sm2

 

 

 

From: JJE Esposito <jjoh...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 12:38 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>

image001.jpg

T Scott Plutchak

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 4:49:22 PM1/16/20
to Glenn Hampson, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative
And this gets to the heart of my concern which led me to step back from OSI a year ago.  Since OSI has no organizational structure and no decision making mechanism, there isn’t any way that “we” can acknowledge what you believe to be the case.  OSI’s position is whatever you say it is.  If you say that OSI’s position is that Open Access only refers to BOAI compliant open then that’s what it is.  There’s no mechanism for determining how many of the people on the email list agree or disagree, or even how many of the people on the list consider themselves to be “members” of OSI in the first place.

Or to frame it another way — you say “we should acknowledge what we already know to be the case.”  How would you be able to tell that we acknowledge this, and who is the “we”?

Scott

On Jan 16, 2020, at 3:35 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

Hi Joe,
 
We’re crossing emails here, but just to reframe what I suggested to Rick, I’m not proposing that OSI create and trademark a new definition from whole cloth. Rather, I’m suggesting we acknowledge what we already know to be the case---that there’s an open spectrum, and that “open access” is a part of this spectrum (at least as OA is defined most advocates). Researchers are generally sloppier than advocates, and will, for instance, call PubMedCentral materials OA when they aren’t---they’re just free to read materials. Advocates, on the other hand, generally insist that BOAI is the foundational definition of OA.
 
This may all seem like a tempest in a teapot but it really does matter, not only to help clean up research in this field, but also to help the different camps of the open advocacy community communicate more effectively. When I say to Heather Joseph that OSI is working hard to improve open, she probably rolls her eyes; but if she understood that our sense of open is broader than hers, then it would be clearer that we’re both on the same page. She’s just working for one particular kind of open. My hope is that by at least getting on the same page, we can then work together and discuss which kinds of open are better for which circumstances, where the gaps exist in open progress and why, and so on. We might not be willing/able to work together to improve open access, but there’s a world of improvement that can happen with open, from getting more materials on the spectrum to moving them closer to OA where possible.
 
I hope this helps.
 
Best,
 
Glenn
 
 
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

Joyce Ogburn

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 5:03:05 PM1/16/20
to T Scott Plutchak, Glenn Hampson, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative
My comment is not specifically to Scott’s point here but to the question about defining open access. Still not knowing who the guide is being written for, I’ll go ahead and suggest that the point about open access should say that the researcher should define what definition of open access they are employing rather than us defining it. Joyce

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2020, at 4:49 PM, T Scott Plutchak <splu...@gmail.com> wrote:

And this gets to the heart of my concern which led me to step back from OSI a year ago.  Since OSI has no organizational structure and no decision making mechanism, there isn’t any way that “we” can acknowledge what you believe to be the case.  OSI’s position is whatever you say it is.  If you say that OSI’s position is that Open Access only refers to BOAI compliant open then that’s what it is.  There’s no mechanism for determining how many of the people on the email list agree or disagree, or even how many of the people on the list consider themselves to be “members” of OSI in the first place.

JJE Esposito

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 5:10:42 PM1/16/20
to Glenn Hampson, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative
OA means free to read, Glenn. PMC is OA. We should not privilege activists. Language grows from the bottom up. BTW, I was formerly the President of Merriam-Webster, where I learned not to be prescriptivists about terms.

In any event, this is no skin off my nose. You are simply making it easier for opponents to defend their turf. 

Joe

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 5:17:21 PM1/16/20
to T Scott Plutchak, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Hi Scott,

 

There are about six issues wrapped into your email. I’ll try to address them in short sentences out of respect for everyone’s time, but would be happy to elaborate. These are all important matters you raise:

 

  1. OSI has no organizational structure: We do. It’s defined here: http://osiglobal.org/osi-governance-guidelines/. This said, our structure can be whatever we want it to be and whatever works best for our purposes. If you would like to see some other kind of structure, please do feel free to propose something---the next summit meeting will be coming up soon.
  2. OSI has no decision making mechanism: Again, we do. It’s also defined in our governance guidelines. As we discussed last year during our effort to craft a reply to Plan S, we aren’t going to try to endorse anything or draft statements that pretend to represent the consensus view of all OSI participants. Our goal is to try to represent a balanced perspective which includes input from all the different viewpoints in this group. With respect to other group decisions, like deciding which projects to pursue, these are discussed in summit meetings and off-list subgroups from these meetings.
  3. OSI’s position is whatever you say it is: Nope. Never once. Now, I do need to make lots of tactical decisions without consulting the group (e.g., which grants to apply for and what to say in these grant proposals). But I’m never out there saying that OSI’s “position” is x. I know better!
  4. There’s no mechanism for determining how many of the people on the email list agree or disagree: There is---we’ve voted several times before. We usually get about 20% participation (or about N=60)
  5. There’s no mechanism for determining how many of the people on the list consider themselves to be “members” of OSI in the first place: A few years ago we decided that the right way to answer this question was to refer to the listserv members as “OSI participants, alumni and observers.” See http://osiglobal.org/osi-participants/ for details. I think the listserv has about 350-ish people on it at the moment.
  6. WRT open vs. open access, “We should acknowledge what we already know to be the case”: Here, “we” is the OSI group. We can put this issue to a vote if you’d like, but I’d prefer to first understand the objections to this idea.

 

I hope this answers your questions. I’m happy to elaborate---here or off-list.

 

Best regards,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

OSI-logo-email-sm2

image001.jpg

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 5:20:41 PM1/16/20
to Joyce Ogburn, T Scott Plutchak, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Yes---my recollection of the umpteen studies I’ve read is that that happens most of the time to some degree. Some researchers are more careful about this than others, and some researchers just get the definition wrong despite the effort---it’s a complicated topic.

 

From: Joyce Ogburn <ogbu...@appstate.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 2:03 PM
To: T Scott Plutchak <splu...@gmail.com>

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 5:35:51 PM1/16/20
to JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

I’ve honestly never heard anyone say this Joe---it’s new to me, and very interesting. Most of the people we work with in the open space---I would venture that includes most of the people on this list---would not agree with you.

 

In any event, politically speaking, if one of our most important goals is to find common ground and work across the aisle on this important issue, one important acknowledgement we can make is that open access is very clearly defined in BOAI and subsequent documents as being free to read AND free to reuse. And again, the emerging definition from cOAlition-S and elsewhere posits that “real” OA has even more strings attached (such as immediacy, data, proper repositories, etc.).

 

In the interest of finding common ground, it wouldn’t hurt us one iota to concede this point because we’re not working to promote JUST open access---we’re working to promote open scholarship writ large. This includes material that might be free to read but with a tradition copyright; material that might be embargoed but free to read in six months; and material that might be sitting on the “wrong” server or without data attached. There are a hundred different kinds of open that exist in the world---we’re interested in all of them. If we insist on calling all of this “open access,” then we’re insisting on fighting a separate battle and calling SPARC and other groups in this space “opponents.” They aren’t. They are allies. Acknowledging this through our language is a simple way to begin.

 

With a nod to your Merriam-Webster background, this isn’t being prescriptive, but accommodating---recognizing that the expert community is using this word differently, and looking for a solution that acknowledges all uses as being legitimate.

 

I hope this make sense---I appreciate the discussion. We haven’t touched this issue in a long while.

image001.jpg
image002.jpg

Mel DeSart

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 6:26:55 PM1/16/20
to JJE Esposito, Glenn Hampson, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Sorry Joe, but I disagree.  I do not now, nor have I ever, defined open access as simply “free to read”.  As far as I’m concerned, free to read = public access (which is what the OSTP Holdren memo required of government agencies).  And my belief is that open access (regardless of which of the commonly referenced definitions of OA (Budapest, etc.) someone ascribes to) offers more to a user than just the freedom to read (and perhaps save/download).  The phrase “open access” is never used in the Holdren memo – “public access” is used multiple times.  And what those agencies offer is the freedom to read, or public access.

 

Mel

Wulf, Karin A

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 6:29:58 PM1/16/20
to Mel DeSart, JJE Esposito, Glenn Hampson, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Hello,

Not to barge into an intramural here, but I agree with Joe.  In my field, in position paper after position paper,
and in other arts and humanities fields, reuse is at best inappropriate.  When people hear for read “open access”
they mean “free to read.”  I think within the confines of discussions among those who discuss this intensely,
and largely within STEM fields, it means something else.

Karin

*****************
Karin Wulf
Executive Director, Omohundro Institute of Early American History & Culture
Professor of History, William & Mary
Twitter at kawulf 
Website karinwulf dot com


On Jan 16, 2020, at 6:24 PM, Mel DeSart <des...@uw.edu> wrote:

Sorry Joe, but I disagree.  I do not now, nor have I ever, defined open access as simply “free to read”.  As far as I’m concerned, free to read = public access (which is what the OSTP Holdren memo required of government agencies).  And my belief is that open access (regardless of which of the commonly referenced definitions of OA (Budapest, etc.) someone ascribes to) offers more to a user than just the freedom to read (and perhaps save/download).  The phrase “open access” is never used in the Holdren memo – “public access” is used multiple times.  And what those agencies offer is the freedom to read, or public access.
 
Mel
 
 
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of JJE Esposito
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 2:10 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: Anthony Watkinson <anthony....@btinternet.com>; Richard Gedye <ric...@gedye.plus.com>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: draft guide for open access research
 
OA means free to read, Glenn. PMC is OA. We should not privilege activists. Language grows from the bottom up. BTW, I was formerly the President of Merriam-Webster, where I learned not to be prescriptivists about terms.
 
In any event, this is no skin off my nose. You are simply making it easier for opponents to defend their turf. 
 
Joe
 
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 4:35 PM Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
Hi Joe,
 
We’re crossing emails here, but just to reframe what I suggested to Rick, I’m not proposing that OSI create and trademark a new definition from whole cloth. Rather, I’m suggesting we acknowledge what we already know to be the case---that there’s an open spectrum, and that “open access” is a part of this spectrum (at least as OA is defined most advocates). Researchers are generally sloppier than advocates, and will, for instance, call PubMedCentral materials OA when they aren’t---they’re just free to read materials. Advocates, on the other hand, generally insist that BOAI is the foundational definition of OA.
 
This may all seem like a tempest in a teapot but it really does matter, not only to help clean up research in this field, but also to help the different camps of the open advocacy community communicate more effectively. When I say to Heather Joseph that OSI is working hard to improve open, she probably rolls her eyes; but if she understood that our sense of open is broader than hers, then it would be clearer that we’re both on the same page. She’s just working for one particular kind of open. My hope is that by at least getting on the same page, we can then work together and discuss which kinds of open are better for which circumstances, where the gaps exist in open progress and why, and so on. We might not be willing/able to work together to improve open access, but there’s a world of improvement that can happen with open, from getting more materials on the spectrum to moving them closer to OA where possible.
 
I hope this helps.
 
Best,
 
Glenn
 
 
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
-- 
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 visithttp://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 osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/01bc01d5cb44%249a5760d0%24cf062270%24%40nationalscience.org.
-- 
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 osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/000501d5cbdd%24b506cb70%241f146250%24%40gedye.plus.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 visithttp://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 osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/051601d5cc5c%249611bca0%24c23535e0%24%40btinternet.com.

 
--
Joseph J. Esposito
espo...@gmail.com
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito
-- 
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 visithttp://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 osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CABcSf%2Bhh2rdtRmW3OfT%2BzWce8hAY29uPVm3Z6DgAEXqVCCua%2BA%40mail.gmail.com.

 
--
Joseph J. Esposito
espo...@gmail.com
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito

 
-- 
Joseph J. Esposito
espo...@gmail.com
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito
-- 
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 visithttp://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 osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CABcSf%2BgmS7w-%3D492r%2B-X_3CCo-Gd5Wn2K-NfMehTH8GR1RFi0g%40mail.gmail.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 osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 6:44:53 PM1/16/20
to Wulf, Karin A, Mel DeSart, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Hi Karin,

 

What you’re noting is perhaps the single most important reason why HSS has complained so loudly about open access---because open access means free plus CC-BY, and CC-BY in the humanities is pretty much a non-starter (as you note). So, all our open access work to-date has been trying to retrofit STM solutions to HSS, which just isn’t working all that well. There are exceptions and pioneers, of course---Martin Eve---but for the most part, there’s a lot of angst.

 

By working instead for “open,” and not necessarily open access, we’re on common ground---we’re working, for now at least, to improve free access of any kind (copyrighted, etc.). Perhaps HSS norms will evolve over time, but until then, at least there can be more “open” HSS materials.

 

With regard to the most common definition in use in the library community (and probably funder/policy community as well, check out SPARC’s OA factsheet at https://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Open-Access-Factsheet_SPARC.11.10-3.pdf. SPARC has a megaphone on this issue and has been speaking through it for years.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

OSI-logo-email-sm2

image002.jpg

Rick Anderson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 6:47:12 PM1/16/20
to Wulf, Karin A, Mel DeSart, JJE Esposito, Glenn Hampson, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

For what it’s worth, after spending a lot of time in these conversations with lots and lots of people over the past 20 years, my strong impression is that the great majority of people in the scholcomm space understand “open access” to mean “free to read.” Those who consider OA to include unrestricted reuse tend, in my experience, to be people who are deeply involved in OA and are usually active advocates for it. I’m not saying either of those positions is right or wrong, just that I think Joe is right that the great majority of people understand OA to mean “free to read” and don’t even think at all about reuse issues.

 

Of course, it’s important to bear in mind that the great majority of people in the scholcomm space are not librarians, and they’re not publishers. They’re scholars, scientists, and students.

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

rick.a...@utah.edu

 

From: <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Karin Wulf <kaw...@wm.edu>


Date: Thursday, January 16, 2020 at 4:30 PM
To: Mel DeSart <des...@uw.edu>

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 6:48:43 PM1/16/20
to Rick Anderson, Wulf, Karin A, Mel DeSart, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

I agree---I think that’s exactly right. And exactly the problem we’re trying to address here.

Joyce Ogburn

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 7:02:22 PM1/16/20
to Glenn Hampson, Rick Anderson, Wulf, Karin A, Mel DeSart, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Now I am confused,  if we are trying to address the problem in how the term OA is used in conducting or reporting research that is very different from trying to make everyone in any possible case of usage conform to only one definition.   And I agree that to most people in common parlance open access means free to read.  I think this is one reason it is better to recommend that in research one defines OA for the purposes of the research being conducted. This obviates the need to push one definition on all communities and for all time.  This also allows for new definitions to emerge that may be even more restrictive, or expansive for that matter, as the environment and needs of research changes. 

Joyce 


Sent from my iPad

On Jan 16, 2020, at 6:48 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:



David Wojick

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 7:44:43 PM1/16/20
to Joyce Ogburn, Glenn Hampson, Rick Anderson, Wulf, Karin A, Mel DeSart, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Yes, treat the specialized definition as a technical research term. Like "heat" in thermodynamics, which is quite different from its ordinary meaning. But this still needs to be made clear up front.

David

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 8:05:48 PM1/16/20
to Joyce Ogburn, Rick Anderson, Wulf, Karin A, Mel DeSart, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Hi Joyce,

 

Yes. Here again we’re just talking about the research community (including our allies in open). If Joe and/or Merriam Webster or 3 out of 4 dentist want to go on calling everything open access, that’s fine. The intent here is to get the open reformers and managers speaking the same language. As this usage becomes better known, it will spread (through libraries and funders) to the researchers too. This isn’t anything that will require a big PR push or public education campaign---just clarification from OSI to the open community, going forward, that we think “open” describes a wide variety of outcomes, including the specific outcome of “open access” (and that therefore these two terms shouldn’t be interchangeable).

 

I think the pros of doing this far outweigh the cons. The alternative is to do nothing and just continue to note that the open spectrum includes all kinds of open (and note that some people use the term open access while others use the term open). This might be okay, but it wont’ address the research imprecision issue. It would also leave OSI in the awkward position of looking like we’re trying to reinvent the definition of OA or move the goalposts, and we aren’t even remotely (to either charge). The perception is that SPARC (and others in this space) define open as being free, immediate, CC-BY and digital, and we define open as being a spectrum, and never these two viewpoints shall meet. But the reality is that SPARC is defining “open access,” not “open,” as a being specific point on the open spectrum. That’s common ground, it’s accurate ground, and it’s utterly the easiest, most meaningful, most sensible way to avoid damaging confrontation on this issue while at the same time adding value to the open ecosystem, in my opinion.

 

Does this make sense? You’ve heard enough from me on this. Why shouldn’t we do this?

 

Best,

 

Glenn

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 8:08:14 PM1/16/20
to David Wojick, Joyce Ogburn, Rick Anderson, Wulf, Karin A, Mel DeSart, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Yes---excellent analogy David---thank you. No one can prevent the colloquial use from being whatever it wants to be. I’m talking about the technical research definition.

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 5:45 PM
To: Joyce Ogburn <ogbu...@appstate.edu>

Joyce Ogburn

unread,
Jan 16, 2020, 8:16:09 PM1/16/20
to Glenn Hampson, Rick Anderson, Wulf, Karin A, Mel DeSart, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative
This confuses me further. Reformers and managers aren’t necessarily doing research. If you want to drop the conversation that’s fine but I remain unsure what and who the guide is for. The application you are advocating seems to be far beyond conducting research.  Joyce

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2020, at 8:05 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:



Glenn Hampson

unread,
Jan 17, 2020, 12:01:00 PM1/17/20
to Joyce Ogburn, Rick Anderson, Wulf, Karin A, Mel DeSart, JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, Richard Gedye, The Open Scholarship Initiative

They absolutely are Joyce---think Wellcome, for instance, which has a strong presence on both the research and the reform sides of open. Or all the people and groups involved in Plan S (which includes several researchers and research funders). There’s a lot of crossover between people/groups who are researching open, people/groups who are advocating for open reform, and people/groups who are managing reform efforts.

 

But going back to David’s analogy, I think it might be clearer to think of this as just a technical definition for the open wonk community. Everyone else can tune out, but for the people who are studying this issue, funding it, and managing efforts to reform it, we all need to understand what “it” means. We took the first step in 2016 by publishing the open spectrum---this next step is smaller and more focused.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

susan

unread,
Jan 17, 2020, 12:52:13 PM1/17/20
to The Open Scholarship Initiative
well said -- it is what often makes social sciences, psychology, and a lot of neuroscience research problematic.  
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages