Plan S article in Physics Today
T Scott Plutchak
Glenn Hampson
Wow. One wonders how the Trump Administration might view this issue. Depending on how much pull his science officers have, Plan S might be an easy sell. Too cynical?
Pro (adopt Plan S) | Con (don’t adopt Plan S) | Indifferent (who cares?) |
If it overturns an Obama-era policy, it must be good | Big businesses are opposed | Lower resource areas of the world will be negatively affected |
It removes “secrecy” in science by making more information public---a recurring theme | This requires cooperation with Europe---the US doesn’t do cooperation | Government agencies have their own carefully-crafted plans in place |
It streamlines rules (by making all research follow the same publishing requirements) |
|
|
Researchers don’t like it (but they’re all Democrats, so great!) |
|
|
Science may be hurt (but it’s all fake anyway) |
|
|
--
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 post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
JJE Esposito
David Wojick
Very good article in Physics Today occasioned by Smits’s visit to the US to stump for Plan S. I was particularly interested in the speculations about the possibility of OSTP making changes to their public access mandates. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20181011a/full/Scott
--
David Wojick
Glenn Hampson
This isn’t anti-Republican David (whatever this means---the Republican brand, which I burnished as a younger man, is almost unrecognizable compared to 25 years ago)---just assorted quotes from President Trump. As with climate change policy, the wild card here may be how much President Trump cares about this issue. If the answer is not much, then maybe normal policymaking rules will apply.
Michael Eisen
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Professor of Genetics, Genomics and Development
University of California, Berkeley
Glenn Hampson
Yep---and modern NIH funding has fared better under Republican administrations as well. This definitely isn’t (or shouldn’t be) a partisan effort---unless one party has genuinely transformed into an aggressively anti-science party (and it’s hard to tell how much of this is bluster playing to the base or actual policy threat because until recently at least, when push comes to shove, moderate policies have still been the norm).
David Wojick
Your chart jibes are clearly anti-Administration (not just anti-Trump) but they are also commonly used against certain Members of Congress, the House Science committee, etc. No matter what your historical feelings, these are the Republicans in power. If they saw this chart OSI would be dead to them.
Heather has managed to keep OA relatively non-political, hence her invitation to the OSTP meeting. If OSI would rather present itself as an anti-Republican political group, which this chart certainly does, there may be advantages to that strategy. For example, the Democrats may win one or both Houses next month.
I take no position here, but I wanted to point out what you are doing strategically.
As for the wild card, I think OA is far too small an issue for anyone on Whitehouse staff to even hear about, certainly not the President. OSTP is about as far up as it is likely to get. If they tried Plan S that might change because it might hit the Universities financially, given potential annual APCs in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
David
At 12:00 PM 10/17/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:
This isn’t anti-Republican David (whatever this means---the Republican brand, which I burnished as a younger man, is almost unrecognizable compared to 25 years ago)---just assorted quotes from President Trump. As with climate change policy, the wild card here may be how much President Trump cares about this issue. If the answer is not much, then maybe normal policymaking rules will apply.
From: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 7:38 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Plan S article in Physics Today
OSI can attack the Republicans if it so chooses, but there are obvious downsides to this policy position.
David
On Oct 16, 2018, at 7:21 PM, Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- Wow. One wonders how the Trump Administration might view this issue. Depending on how much pull his science officers have, Plan S might be an easy sell. Too cynical?
- Pro (adopt Plan S)
- Con (don’t adopt Plan S)
- Indifferent (who cares?)
- If it overturns an Obama-era policy, it must be good
- Big businesses are opposed
- Lower resource areas of the world will be negatively affected
- It removes “secrecy†in science by making more information public---a recurring theme
- This requires cooperation with Europe---the US doesn’t do cooperation
- Government agencies have their own carefully-crafted plans in place
- It streamlines rules (by making all research follow the same publishing requirements)
- Researchers don’t like it (but they’re all Democrats, so great!)
- Science may be hurt (but it’s all fake anyway)
- From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of T Scott Plutchak
- Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 3:19 PM
- To: The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: Plan S article in Physics Today
- Very good article in Physics Today occasioned by Smits’s visit to the US to stump for Plan S. I was particularly interested in the speculations about the possibility of OSTP making changes to their public access mandates. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20181011a/full/
Glenn Hampson
David----SPARC has been at this fight for a lot longer and much more prominent than OSI, hence their invitation. They are good spokespersons for the cause of open and we wish them well. However, their idea of open is very singular and because of this, SPARC has been far from non-polarizing---maybe apolitical, but certainly not centrist. OSI is much more centrist in this conversation, which is irritating to people with deeply-engrained beliefs on both ends of the spectrum (including SPARC). This is why UNESCO is working with OSI---to hear from a wide variety of stakeholder groups and try to come up with solutions that work for everyone everywhere. If we can get an invite to speak with OSTP as well, great---I’ll ask around (some of our colleagues on this list are from OSTP).
Joyce Ogburn
David Wojick
Davi
At 02:49 PM 10/17/2018, Joyce Ogburn wrote:
Can we take a step back and not engage this way? I would encourage us to leave politically slanted statements out of the discussions - its a dangerous path.
Joyce
Joyce L. Ogburn
Professor, Digital Strategies and Partnerships Librarian
Appalachian State University
218 College Street
Boone NC 28608-2026
@libjoyce
Lifelong learning requires lifelong accessÂ
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:37 PM Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- David----SPARC has been at this fight for a lot longer and much more prominent than OSI, hence their invitation. They are good spokespersons for the cause of open and we wish them well. However, their idea of open is very singular and because of this, SPARC has been far from non-polarizing---maybe apolitical, but certainly not centrist. OSI is much more centrist in this conversation, which is irritating to people with deeply-engrained beliefs on both ends of the spectrum (including SPARC). This is why UNESCO is working with OSI---to hear from a wide variety of stakeholder groups and try to come up with solutions that work for everyone everywhere. If we can get an invite to speak with OSTP as well, great---I’ll ask around (some of our colleagues on this list are from OSTP).
- Â
- From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of David Wojick
- Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 11:16 AM
- To: Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org>
- Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: RE: Plan S article in Physics Today
- Â
- Glenn,
- Your chart jibes are clearly anti-Administration (not just anti-Trump) but they are also commonly used against certain Members of Congress, the House Science committee, etc. No matter what your historical feelings, these are the Republicans in power. If they saw this chart OSI would be dead to them.
- Heather has managed to keep OA relatively non-political, hence her invitation to the OSTP meeting. If OSI would rather present itself as an anti-Republican political group, which this chart certainly does, there may be advantages to that strategy. For example, the Democrats may win one or both Houses next month.
- I take no position here, but I wanted to point out what you are doing strategically.
- As for the wild card, I think OA is far too small an issue for anyone on Whitehouse staff to even hear about, certainly not the President. OSTP is about as far up as it is likely to get. If they tried Plan S that might change because it might hit the Universities financially, given potential annual APCs in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
- David
- At 12:00 PM 10/17/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:
- This isn̢۪t anti-Repubpublican David (whatever this means---the Republican brand, which I burnished as a younger man, is almost unrecognizable compared to 25 years ago)---just assorted quotes from President Trump. As with climate change policy, the wild card here may be how much President Trump cares about this issue. If the answer is not much, then maybe normal policymaking rules will apply.
- Â
- From: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us >
- Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 7:38 AM
- To: Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org>
- Cc: The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: Re: Plan S article in Physics Today
- Â
- OSI can attack the Republicans if it so chooses, but there are obvious downsides to this policy position.
- Â
- David
- On Oct 16, 2018, at 7:21 PM, Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- Wow. One wonders how the Trump Administration might view this issue. Depending on how much pull his science officers have, Plan S might be an easy sell. Too cynical?
- Â
- Pro (adopt Plan S)
- Con (don̢۪t adopt Plan S)
- Indifferent (who cares?)
- If it overturns an Obama-era policy, it must be good
- Big businesses are opposed
- Lower resource areas of the world will be negatively affected
- It removes “s“secrecy†in science by making more information public---a recuurring theme
- This requires cooperation with Europe---the US doesnâ€ââ„¢t do cooperation
- Government agencies have their own carefully-crafted plans in place
- It streamlines rules (by making all research follow the same publishing requirements)
- Â
- Â
- Researchers don’t like it (but theyâ€Ã¢â‚¬™re all Democrats, so great!)
- Â
- Â
- Science may be hurt (but itâ€ââ„¢s all fake anyway)
- Â
- Â
- Â
- Â
- Â
- From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of T Scott Plutchak
- Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 3:19 PM
- To: The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: Plan S article in Physics Today
- Â
- Very good article in Physics Today occasioned by Smits’s visiisit to the US to stump for Plan S. I was particularly interested in the speculations about the possibility of OSTP making changes to their public access mandates. https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20181011a/full/
- Â
Glenn Hampson
I’m sorry David if my shorthand here seemed anti-Republican. I’m not a fan of the party leadership’s philosophical bent (and it shows), but I am a big fan of working across the aisle. I agree that off-the-cuff remarks don’t serve us well.
I also agree with your general sense that policy inroads are important. We don’t have a government affairs arm, as do most groups working to inform policy decisions. If you want to help do this work for OSI, we’d be much obliged---maybe there are other policy wonks amongst us who can also help.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
