Suggestion to start a new Plan S Brief

[lenny]

Dear All,

I made a good-faith effort to review the brief yesterday. I made comments while going through the document, and at the end of it, was unpleasantly surprised to discover that the brief is not really a balanced set of perspectives but a strong anti-Plan S recommendation from OSI. My final comment on that document:

Honestly, much of the earlier part of this brief seems to be "we all disagree and there is no OSI position". Then in the end, in the "closing" section, it suddenly explodes into a "shred Plan S please" set of recommendations. As such, it makes it look like a smartly worded document of opposition to Plan S.

My suggestion is to cut out "OSI recommendations" and turn it into a neutral but informative document with links to analyses in support of and against Plan S. I made a copy of the brief from yesterday and made a recommendation: Neutral OSI policy brief on Plan S.

Kind regards,

Lenny

--

Lenny Teytelman, Ph.D.

CEO, protocols.io

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi Lenny,

 

Thanks for all your work on this. I’ll definitely take a close look. This draft is evolving so much it’s hard to keep track. Rob Johnson and Jon Tenant shredded this before you did; and Joyce’s advice was similar to yours; so at this point I would advise everyone to not comment on the google docs version since it really doesn’t exist any longer.

 

As for that last section, I put it in by request to be more specific/proactive. If not Plan S then what? This is just a set of ideas for discussion (as the preface says), not an actual proposal. Maybe it doesn’t belong there.

 

But if you take the big picture view and ask what is it that we’re trying to do here---and if the answer is “accelerate global progress toward open”---then the Plan T proposal does this. Making sure we carefully study the effects of APCs first and that we build more perspectives and accountability into Plan S isn’t evisceration---it’s just responsible policy making. Suggesting that CC-BY/immediate be optional instead of mandatory is adding another pathway to open that aligns with how the open market has actually evolved over the last 20 years; making repositories work in alignment with COAR recommendations is critical so we don’t lose the benefits and dynamism of sites like bioArxiv; and increasing our investment in the future of open well beyond what is called for in Plan S is also not only important, it’s necessary. We can’t just aim for a world with more open without understanding why we’re heading there or what we’re going to do once we get there.

 

So, you can call this evisceration, but maybe it’s “reinforcing” Plan S too. I prefer the latter perspective, but can understand why you might have the former.

 

Thanks again for your work on this---greatly appreciated.

 

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 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.

[T Scott Plutchak]

I’m pretty much in agreement with Lenny’s comments on the doc and definitely support his suggestion of a stripped down, neutral draft outlining support and concerns.  I think Abel’s suggestion lines up with this as well.  This approach would be more accurately reflective of the diversity of opinions within OSI and would, I think, be useful to the folks at UNESCO in coming up with a position statement.

 “Plan T” is an interesting set of proposals, but it doesn’t belong in this document.  What Lenny’s comments highlight is the contradiction throughout the current draft between saying that there is no single OSI point of view and then appearing to present Plan T as OSI’s position.  It may be Glenn’s best effort at stitching together the various threads of opinion among OSI participants, but I doubt there are many on the list who would wholeheartedly agree with all of it.   The draft recognizes this when it says, "OSI can’t make these recommendations as a group, of course, so there are probably just as many people in OSI who disagree with these as agree.” But then it contradicts this almost immediately saying, "But in the interest of finding common ground---if this common ground is to improve open---then maybe something along these lines would work for everyone.” Including it here makes it appear as if it represents OSI’s alternatives rather than just being a set of ideas for discussion.

The elements in Plan T are certainly worth discussion and maybe out of that some degree of consensus will emerge among the OSI participants.  But the discussion of the past week has shown that we’re clearly not there yet.

Scott

On Dec 16, 2018, at 12:30 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

Hi Lenny,

 

Thanks for all your work on this. I’ll definitely take a close look. This draft is evolving so much it’s hard to keep track. Rob Johnson and Jon Tenant shredded this before you did; and Joyce’s advice was similar to yours; so at this point I would advise everyone to not comment on the google docs version since it really doesn’t exist any longer.

 

As for that last section, I put it in by request to be more specific/proactive. If not Plan S then what? This is just a set of ideas for discussion (as the preface says), not an actual proposal. Maybe it doesn’t belong there.

 

But if you take the big picture view and ask what is it that we’re trying to do here---and if the answer is “accelerate global progress toward open”---then the Plan T proposal does this. Making sure we carefully study the effects of APCs first and that we build more perspectives and accountability into Plan S isn’t evisceration---it’s just responsible policy making. Suggesting that CC-BY/immediate be optional instead of mandatory is adding another pathway to open that aligns with how the open market has actually evolved over the last 20 years; making repositories work in alignment with COAR recommendations is critical so we don’t lose the benefits and dynamism of sites like bioArxiv; and increasing our investment in the future of open well beyond what is called for in Plan S is also not only important, it’s necessary. We can’t just aim for a world with more open without understanding why we’re heading there or what we’re going to do once we get there.

 

So, you can call this evisceration, but maybe it’s “reinforcing” Plan S too. I prefer the latter perspective, but can understand why you might have the former.

 

Thanks again for your work on this---greatly appreciated.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

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

<image001.jpg>

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi Scott,

 

I’m attaching the latest draft here (which doesn’t look like Lenny’s yet). Thanks to many of you for continuing to make recommendations. Lenny---please don’t post this on Twitter 😊

 

My ideal of course---and something I was hoping would happen---would be to have a brief ready to go about APCs in general, because this issue is really at the center of this conversation. We don’t have a brief ready, though, so this makes what we’re saying on this issue seem hasty and partisan. We do have a brief on the open spectrum and open growth, which are other dimensions of Plan S, and these are referenced.

 

Anyway---I’m circulating this version for posterity before it gets cut down to size. My plan is to ask Jon to take a whack at it (again), and then Rick (again), and then I’ll break out the chainsaw and see how much can be shaved off. Simply saying, however, in essence, that this is a complicated issue and here are all the different opinions on it is not where we should end up, IMHO. There are lots of different opinions about the open, but we’ve agreed that it exists on a spectrum of outcomes, and this big tent approach is central to our advice on open. In this case, there are lots of different opinions about Plan S, but it’s not helpful to give it our tacit approval as is (by making not comment) and say, in effect, “go ahead and do your best to change the global publishing system with an incomplete policy document and without everyone’s input and we’ll cheer you on and hope for the best.” There has been sufficient concern expressed in this community to hit the pause button and look at this plan and the issues involved more closely. We would do (and have done) exactly the same thing on any other issue---our discussions here about open peer review, journal publishing standards, the moral basis for open, the double-dipping, open citations, and so much more are interesting and important precisely because we expose a variety of viewpoints and concerns.

 

If we’re going to work on open as a community, then we need to work as a community. If we aren’t, and if the EU just goes off and does its own thing and UNESCO and the US and others do their own thing, I don’t think this is the kind of outcome we should be working for, or wishing for.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

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

[Lenny Teytelman]

Hi Glenn,

Again, I strongly urge you to consider your bias. As I said yesterday, the publishers sponsoring OSI are all corporate subscription giants. https://twitter.com/lteytelman/status/1073984286515056640

If OSI feels its mission is to advocate against Plan S, that makes sense given the sponsors, but is not a balanced voice reflecting those among OSI participants who support Plan S. 

However, the reason you invited me into the group yesterday seems to be a desire for OSI to represent diverse voices. The threads here around Plan S certainly demonstrate a diversity of perspectives. I am certain that you can provide a brief that lists concerns (and there are legitimate concerns about Plan S), without it being a document aligned with interests of subscription publishers at the expense of the voices that think it is important to strongly push for a transition to full and immediate open access. 

Kind regards,

Lenny

On Dec 16, 2018, at 5:19 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

Hi Scott,

 

I’m attaching the latest draft here (which doesn’t look like Lenny’s yet). Thanks to many of you for continuing to make recommendations. Lenny---please don’t post this on Twitter 😊

 

My ideal of course---and something I was hoping would happen---would be to have a brief ready to go about APCs in general, because this issue is really at the center of this conversation. We don’t have a brief ready, though, so this makes what we’re saying on this issue seem hasty and partisan. We do have a brief on the open spectrum and open growth, which are other dimensions of Plan S, and these are referenced.

 

Anyway---I’m circulating this version for posterity before it gets cut down to size. My plan is to ask Jon to take a whack at it (again), and then Rick (again), and then I’ll break out the chainsaw and see how much can be shaved off. Simply saying, however, in essence, that this is a complicated issue and here are all the different opinions on it is not where we should end up, IMHO. There are lots of different opinions about the open, but we’ve agreed that it exists on a spectrum of outcomes, and this big tent approach is central to our advice on open. In this case, there are lots of different opinions about Plan S, but it’s not helpful to give it our tacit approval as is (by making not comment) and say, in effect, “go ahead and do your best to change the global publishing system with an incomplete policy document and without everyone’s input and we’ll cheer you on and hope for the best.” There has been sufficient concern expressed in this community to hit the pause button and look at this plan and the issues involved more closely. We would do (and have done) exactly the same thing on any other issue---our discussions here about open peer review, journal publishing standards, the moral basis for open, the double-dipping, open citations, and so much more are interesting and important precisely because we expose a variety of viewpoints and concerns.

 

If we’re going to work on open as a community, then we need to work as a community. If we aren’t, and if the EU just goes off and does its own thing and UNESCO and the US and others do their own thing, I don’t think this is the kind of outcome we should be working for, or wishing for.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

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

<image001.jpg>

<OSI-POLICY-BRIEF-PLAN-S-revised3.docx>

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi Lenny,

 

You’re new to OSI so I don’t expect you to be up-to-speed on all the work that’s gone on here to-date. But as I said in my invite, I do hope you’ll take time to read through the OSI website and maybe even through some of the conference reports.

 

Is the Plan S report biased? I concede that it isn’t my best work and promise it won’t see the light of day in its current form. This isn’t “my” report to submit---it’s the group’s. But this isn’t what bias looks like. To quote Forest Gump, bias is as bias does. I’ve spent my entire weekend defending OSI on Twitter from the fight you started. This is bias---using a platform that excels at amplifying anger and misunderstanding to shout down people who disagree with you.

 

As for OSI having publisher bias, you’ll need to explain to me what that looks like since there as many differences between publishers as there are between stakeholder groups. Plus the people in OSI come from 250 different institutions---not just “publishers.” And our sponsors have also included the Sloan Foundation, the Arnold Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, and UNESCO, to whom we are accountable. Can you please tell me what all their agendas look like? I know I can’t.

 

Finally, in defense of my colleagues in OSI, there are many wonderful, thoughtful people in this group who will take great exception to being told their opinions are worthless because they don’t align with yours. That’s not how we roll, as I explained in my invitation to you. We run into this issue on occasion because open is a passionate subject on many levels, but in order to make actual headway, we need to make sure we’re actually talking to each other and not past each other. This is hard to do for everyone, but I think we’re able to do it more often than not.

 

You are a brilliant voice and advocate for open, Lenny, and I hope we can benefit from your input and insight. But you’ll need to open to learning from the people on this list as well. I hope this will be a two-way street---otherwise, you’re going to get pretty frustrated pretty quickly.

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

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

[Lenny Teytelman]

Dear Glenn,

I have read pretty much everything on the OSI website. I have also carefully read every response in the Plan S threads in the OSI Google Group. It is precisely in response to what I have read that I have spoken up on Twitter yesterday.

I have no expectation that people should agree with me. I very much enjoy conversing with and listening to those who disagree with me. Nothing from what I said yesterday or today in this list suggests that "people's opinions are worthless because they don’t align with mine" as you claimed.

We are all biased. I was a graduate student of Mike Eisen and am a passionate advocate for open access. Of course I am very biased and opinionated on this issue. Having said that, please note that I'm not suggesting that OSI issue a brief in support of Plan S. I understand you will not. I am suggesting a balanced brief with a page of support for and a page of concerns about Plan S. 

Please feel free to ignore me and my suggestions. However, if the final document from OSI to UNESCO is a recommendation against Plan S (as it is shaping up to be), my sense is that it will undermine the core character of OSI as a diverse and deliberative body, a character that I sense you aspire for OSI to have.

Kind regards,

Lenny

510-301-1215

[Alicia Wise]

+1 on Scott’s thoughtful post...

[Anthony Watkinson]

I also agree but I wonder when is the time to produce something like this bearing in mind that are currently in the consultative period and already there are changes in implementation suggested.

Anthony

[David Wojick]

As I have said from the beginning, an issue analysis and a policy statement are two very different documents. Perhaps OSI should have both, but clearly separately. I would hate to see all the issue work to date wasted. The issues are real and important, no matter what the policy.

David

Inside Plan S

[David Wojick]

We have put considerable effort into articulating the concerns with Plan S, not because they "align with the interests of the publishers" rather because they are real. In fact one can argue the as presently constituted Plan S will have no effect on the publishers but it will have a decidedly adverse effect on the funded researchers who are prohibited from publishing in leading journals. This fact is not a bias.

David

Inside Plan S

[Glenn Hampson]

Thanks Lenny---I agree. And I apologize to you and the list for my shortness yesterday. I have absolutely no right to publicly vent like this while you have every right to your opinion, and I hope you keep fighting the good fight. I also hope you can contribute to this discussion---you already have in an important way---but I hope that in doing so you can also be frank with us here about your ideas for a way forward with global open---not just sharing the solutions you come up with but the details you’re seeing in current efforts, different perspectives you’re seeing, different ways to bridge the gaps, etc.

 

Thanks again.

 

Onward---it’s Monday 😊

 

Glenn

 

p.s.: You were a student of Mike Eisen? Did you know Jon Tenant studied under Mike Taylor? Sounds like the world owes the Mikes a thanks for training the next generation of open advocates!

[Glenn Hampson]

I wonder, Anthony, if it might be possible here to create a very brief  “neutral” statement about Plan S---as Lenny, Scott, Ivy and Joyce are advocating---and then attach dissents to the end? I can author one dissent under my own name that describes, in my opinion (but in my capacity as program director) the concerns people have expressed (basically pages 12-25 of the current brief), and supporters can write dissents explaining why they think Plan S is a good thing and why OSI should support it.

 

Would this work? It separates the oil from the vinegar---it gives an overview of this topic (summary: it’s complicated and contentious) and saves the various opinions for the annex section.

 

What do you think?

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

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

[Joyce Ogburn]

Didn't Rob's briefing do this?

Joyce L. Ogburn

Professor, Digital Strategies and Partnerships Librarian

Appalachian State University

218 College Street

Boone NC 28608-2026

@libjoyce

Lifelong learning requires lifelong access 

[Anthony Watkinson]

I must admit that I am also not really hopeful about anything much different from what  Rob has  ably produced and which we all more or less agreed to.

Anthony

[T Scott Plutchak]

But if the basic statement/overview is indeed neutral (and an updated version of Rob’s draft would be a good foundation for that), what would you be dissenting from?  You’d be expressing an opinion about what position you think OSI should advocate.  Others might present different opinions.  But we still have no mechanism for reconciling those differences.

Think of it this way — the Summit group might be able to come to agreement that Rob’s draft is a good summary.  We can come to agreement that the DARTS spectrum is a useful way of thinking about states of open.  But the Summit group has never been able to find a way to take a position about what should be, or to advocate for a particular solution.  We haven’t even come up with a clearly defined consensus on the specific problems (something that goes beyond the very broad generalities).

To address Rick’s question of 100% open or less than as the goal as an example — I don’t see how there can be an official OSI position on that question or questions of that type.  Providing a mechanism for discussing these differences of opinion and goals is valuable, and that may also be the most the OSI can do.

Scott

On Dec 17, 2018, at 11:45 AM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

I wonder, Anthony, if it might be possible here to create a very brief  “neutral” statement about Plan S---as Lenny, Scott, Ivy and Joyce are advocating---and then attach dissents to the end? I can author one dissent under my own name that describes, in my opinion (but in my capacity as program director) the concerns people have expressed (basically pages 12-25 of the current brief), and supporters can write dissents explaining why they think Plan S is a good thing and why OSI should support it.

 

Would this work? It separates the oil from the vinegar---it gives an overview of this topic (summary: it’s complicated and contentious) and saves the various opinions for the annex section.

 

What do you think?

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

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

<image002.jpg>

[Glenn Hampson]

Hi Scott,

 

The mechanism for making representative decisions for OSI existed in the original governance plan. We never tried it out. Essentially, it would be a majority vote of the full summit, which is/was appointed to represented all 18 stakeholder groups (with one rep from most groups, and I think seven from universities or something like that---basically based on our original 2015 recruitment estimates of who should be in OSI and who should “speak” for it). So yes---that road was paved but never traveled, which reflects the reality of how the summit group actually functioned last year. The original hope was that stakeholder reps would function as such and actually represent the views of colleagues, but this didn’t happen and in retrospect couldn’t and shouldn’t have happened---we’re learning as we go along here.

 

While we need to discuss this approach as a group, what I was proposing in the below email is to have an issue-brief-length piece (1500-ish words) describing Plan S---what it’s about, who’s involved, what the general reaction has been, possible outcomes, next steps, etc., concluding with the statement that OSI is a diverse group supports all open efforts, and includes people who are both supportive of and concerned about this plan. Dissents could depart from this conclusion: Yes, OSI should not be neutral and should support this plan, and no, OSI should not be neutral and should propose ways to fix this plan (some might even want to dissent that OSI should oppose this plan outright).

 

Make sense?

 

Best,

 

Glenn

 

 

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

[jon.tennant.2]

Just to keep this discussion alive a bit, Tony Ross-Hellauer has posted some thoughts on Plan S here now too that should be relevant to OSI discussions on this matter.

Merry Christmas, all!

[David Wojick]

R-H is promoting the repository option, asking Plan S to back off on their requirements, while also asking that journal APCs be made voluntary. Ironically he worries that the repository requirements might be too costly for compliance, without asking the same of journal requirements. But if the journals are forced out of existence, what do the repositories hold?

What the Plan S people seem to ignore is that if the journals cannot afford to comply then they will not comply. This is called "avoidance" in regulatory jargon. As things stand, Plan S may be what is called "programmed to fail".

David

--