another scholarly hoax
Bryan Alexander
http://bryanalexander.org/
Danny Kingsley
--
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.
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
Anthony Watkinson
The article is still up. There is as yet no comment from the editorial group. There are seven senior editors and a large number of editors.
Someone must have responsibilities for handling acceptance in gender studies and I hope they will be working out their response now. As a publisher I have always been suspicious of highly delegated acceptance policies (I assume that this is the case here) especially in a set of disciplines as diverse as those covered by the general term “social sciences”. As the hoaxers point out there are some obvious give-aways such as putting climate change in the list of keywords which the publisher might have spotted.
Anthony
--
Anthony Watkinson
Hi Danny
I question the “slop bucket” assertion. Do we have evidence here?
I personally know a number of people who are in charge of OA publications at a number of major publishers and all of them are very positive about proper quality OA publishing.
I entirely agree with your second paragraph
Anthony
Danny Kingsley
<image001.png>
--
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.
David Wojick
<PastedGraphic-1.tiff>
Anthony Watkinson
I thought you might say that Danny but it looks as if the editors of the first journal approached suggested the Cogent series of journals. This is what we are told by the hoaxers.
Cogent Social Sciences was recommended to us by another journal, NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies, a Taylor and Francis journal. NORMA rejected “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” but thought it a great fit for the Cogent Series, which operates independently under the Taylor and Francis imprimatur. In their rejection letter, the editors of NORMA wrote,
We feel that your manuscript would be well-suited to our Cogent Series, a multidisciplinary, open journal platform for the rapid dissemination of peer-reviewed research across all disciplines.
Transferring your manuscript:
Saves you time because there is no need for you to reformat or resubmit your work manually
Provides faster publication because previous reviews are transferred with your manuscript.
The rejection letter does not usually come from the publishers. It is not the publishers who decided on acceptance or rejection. However it is possible that this is a form letter which the editors have agreed to and which is insisted upon by the publishers. Such cascading is not new. It is practiced or so I am told by BioMed Central well before they were sold to Springer. I have always found journal editors are nervous about these practices but that is now rather of the past.
If we are talking in terms of anecdotes PLOS One has in the eyes of a several of the early career researchers I am interviewing a poor reputation for taking on low quality papers – these are people who approve of the PLOS One mission.
I would suggest that it more likely that there is something wrong with the ways in which acceptance/rejection decisions are made, but, of course, at present I have no evidence
I appreciate that you are bound to take a different attitude.
Laurie Goodman
I laughed a bit less- and actually found the authors rather hypocritical, when they made the assertions- based on one example that:
With a data point of one? That journal (and the one recommending transfer) is obviously not rigorous in assessing research- but, you, the authors of this (not the other paper) are extremely non-rigorous as well.
We wouldn't publish either the Social Construct Penis paper or the paper about the publication of the Social Construct Penis paper.
There seems to be a problem in the value of stem cell studies (Hwang Woo-Suk)
There seems to be a problem in the value of cancer studies (Anil Potti)
Okay- yes, the other Penis Paper was by far more absurd... but: ONE PAPER, One journal... Ah, scientists why don't you understand the need to assess alternative conclusions?
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@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.
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
<image001.png>
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Anthony Watkinson
I entirely agree. One thing we can agree on ( hope) is that there is nothing inherently wrong in the pay to publish model and indeed that there is one very good thing that is right – access. In 2013 we (CIBER) did a massive piece of research on trust in information sources and for a significant number of researchers there were real concerns about OA journals due mainly to experience of “predatory” journals and also the assertions of certain gurus in the publishing industry and in the library world. Now 2016/2017 where we are interviewing Early Career Researchers our interviewees recognise that predatory journals exist but they never see this as representing a problem with the model (I speak of US and UK ECRs here).
I appreciate that the journal that published the hoax was not a “predatory” journal in the standard definition.
Anthony
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Laurie Goodman
Sent: 21 May 2017 09:29
To: Danny Kingsley
Cc: Bryan Alexander; Anthony; The Open Scholarship Initiative
Subject: Re: another scholarly hoax
From a general personal standpoint- I laughed a lot about the absurdity of this article.
-Laurie
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.
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
<image001.png>
--
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.
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
Rick Anderson
I think we need to be careful not to counter one unsustainably categorical statement (“pay-to-publish is not the future of scholarly publishing”) with another, equally unsustainable one (“there is nothing inherently wrong in the pay to publish model”). Of course there’s something wrong in it: the pay-to-publish model creates an unavoidable conflict of interest for the journal. The APC-based journal’s interest in publishing quality science is in conflict with its interest in gathering revenue – because the more rigorous it is (i.e. the more low-quality papers it rejects), the less revenue it will bring in.
This doesn’t mean that the APC model is “bad” – it just means that, like any other publishing model, it’s imperfect. It involves a mixture of costs and benefits. There are very good APC-based journals out there that publish very good science, but this doesn’t mean the problems with APC-based publish aren’t real; it just means they can be successfully managed when a journal is operating in good faith with adequate resources.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
Anthony Watkinson
I think it depends upon what I mean by “inherently”. I meant there is no reason why the model needs to be work the way you said it must – if I read you aright. So perhaps we agree. But perhaps we do not. I am familiar with the arguments of Kent Anderson who believes or believed that the commercial pressures must lead to low quality content.
There was a similar problem with subscription journals. Libraries pay upfront and therefore the publisher is under huge pressure to get out the four issues in new journals that are already paid for. There are ways round it – double issues for example, which may not involve low rejection rates or even no rejection at all when complete meetings are taken on board. I have done this just to keep the journal running but at the same time knowing that I am killing it because its reputation will suffer.
Anthony
Rick Anderson
Hi, Anthony –
I’m not sure what you mean by “no reason why the model needs to work the way (I) say it must.” Can you clarify? (Are you suggesting that the conflict of interest I’ve described isn’t really inherent in the APC model?)
For the record, if Kent has argued that APC-based journals are inevitably low-quality, I disagree. I’m just arguing that in order for them to be of high quality, the conflict of interest I described has to be well-managed. (In other words, the conflict is a real problem – predatory publishing is the purest expression of it – but the problem doesn’t have to be fatal.)
Glenn Hampson
I kinda have a different take on all this, for what it’s worth. This article that Bryan sent around (going back to his original message) was a hoot---a fake academic article about how penises “conceptually” cause climate change (whatever that means!). And the article was published in a legitimate journal---not funny, but not the first time this has ever happened either. So there’s really no news on this account. With 2.5 million academic articles published every year, a certain amount of junk slips into the system via fraud, plagiarism, etc. (as we’ve discussed here at length) and this is a real concern.
To me, though (again, for what it’s worth) the main criticism leveled by the authors of this piece---as illustrated (though not proved) by the success of their publishing experiment---is that the confluence of the pressure to publish in academia, the availability of venues that will accept “self-published” work, the uncritical self-reflection in some disciplines (“pseudo-academic inbreeding”), and the lack of rigorous peer review systems in some cases has created a perfect storm for just about any kind of nonsense to get printed. This “systemic” failure observation is interesting and somewhat new---not the failure of any one piece of the system but the weaknesses and vulnerabilities that together combine to distort incentives and create larger failures than any one weakness might create alone.
Of course, as interesting as this assessment may be, it’s just conjecture---the authors came into this hoax with an axe to grind and the only thing they proved was that a fake article could get published, which is not news. Their conclusions aren’t as wacky as identifying the conceptual cause of climate change, but they do (as Laurie pointed out) need more data points to connect all these dots and more analysis to avoid falling into the correlation-means-causality trap. Still, I thought it was an interesting point and funny hoax---overall, a case study worth adding to the pile of things that need fixing (maybe this one goes on the “culture of communication” to-do list).
Here’s the conclusion from the Skeptic article if you haven’t read it yet:
Conclusion: A Two-Pronged Problem for Academia
There are at least two deeply troublesome diseases damaging the credibility of the peer-review system in fields such as gender studies:
1. the echo-chamber of morally driven fashionable nonsense coming out of the postmodernist social “sciences” in general, and gender studies departments in particular and
2. the complex problem of pay-to-publish journals with lax standards that cash in on the ultra-competitive publish-or-perish academic environment. At least one of these sicknesses led to “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” being published as a legitimate piece of academic scholarship, and we can expect proponents of each to lay primary blame upon the other.
“The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” underwent a blind peer-review process and yet was accepted for publication. This needs serious explaining. Part of the fault may fall on the open-access, pay-to-publish model, but the rest falls on the entire academic enterprise collectively referred to as “gender studies.” As we see it, gender studies in its current form needs to do some serious housecleaning.
To repeat a critical point, this paper was published in a social science journal that was recommended to us as reputable by a supposedly reliable academic source. Cogent Social Sciences has the trappings of a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. There is no way around the fact that the publication of this paper in such a journal must point to some problem with the current state of academic publishing. The components of the problem are, it seems, reducible to just two: academic misfeasance arising from pay-to-publish, open-access financial decision-making; and unconscionable pseudo-academic inbreeding contaminating, if not defining, the postmodernist theory-based social sciences.
On the other hand, no one is arguing, nor has any reason to argue, that respectable journals like Nature and countless others have adopted a peer-review process that is fundamentally flawed or in any meaningful way corrupt. Much of the peer-review system remains the gold-standard for the advancement of human knowledge. The problem lies within a nebula of marginal journals, predatory pay-to-publish journals, and, possibly to some degree, open-access journals—although it may largely be discipline-specific, as we had originally hoped to discover. This is, after all, not the first time postmodernist academia has fallen for a hoax.
This hoax, however, was rooted in moral and political biases masquerading as rigorous academic theory. Working in a biased environment, we successfully sugarcoated utter nonsense with a combination of fashionable moral sentiments and impenetrable jargon. Cogent Social Sciences happily swallowed the pill. It left utter nonsense easy to disguise.
The publish-or-perish academic environment is its own poison that needs a remedy. It gives rise to predatory profit-driven journals with few or no academic standards that take advantage of legitimate scholars pressured into publishing their work at all costs, even if it is marginal or dubious. Many of these scholars are victims both of a system that is forcing them to publish more papers and to publish them more often, to the detriment of research quality, and of the predatory journals that offer to sell them the illusion of academic prestige. Certainly, we have every reason to suspect that a majority of the other academics who have published in Cogent Social Sciences and other journals in the Cogent Series are genuine scholars who have been cheated by what may be a weak peer-review process with a highly polished edifice. Our question about the fundamental integrity of fields like gender studies seems much more pressing nonetheless.
“The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” should not have been published on its merits because it was actively written to avoid having any merits whatsoever. The paper is academically worthless nonsense. The question that now needs to be answered is, “How can we restore the reliability of the peer-review process?”
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
Rick Anderson
I guess the only thing I’ll add before shutting up on this particular topic is that pointing out the inherent issues with APC-based OA publishing doesn’t mean denying the inherent problems with a publish-or-perish academic culture, with toll-access publishing, with critical social theory, with postmodernism, with Enlightenment rationalism, etc.
Every system, every business model, every access program, every human project has both strengths and flaws, and poses both costs and benefits. Our analysis falls down and our planning fails when we insist that any program, system, etc. consists either only of flaws and costs, or only of strengths and benefits.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
From:
<osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Organization: National Science Communication Institute
Date: Monday, May 22, 2017 at 10:36 AM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: another scholarly hoax
I kinda have a different take on all this, for what it’s worth. This article that Bryan sent around (going back to his original message) was a hoot---a fake academic article about how penises “conceptually” cause climate change (whatever that means!). And the article was published in a legitimate journal---not funny, but not the first time this has ever happened either. So there’s really no news on this account. With 2.5 million academic articles published every year, a certain amount of junk slips into the system via fraud, plagiarism, etc. (as we’ve discussed here at length) and this is a real concern.
To me, though (again, for what it’s worth) the main criticism leveled by the authors of this piece---as illustrated (though not proved) by the success of their publishing experiment---is that the confluence of the pressure to publish in academia, the availability of venues that will accept “self-published” work, the uncritical self-reflection in some disciplines (“pseudo-academic inbreeding”), and the lack of rigorous peer review systems in some cases has created a perfect storm for just about any kind of nonsense to get printed. This “systemic” failure observation is interesting and somewhat new---not the failure of any one piece of the system but the weaknesses and vulnerabilities that together combine to distort incentives and create larger failures than any one weakness might create alone.
Of course, as interesting as this assessment may be, it’s just conjecture---the authors came into this hoax with an axe to grind and the only thing they proved was that a fake article could get published, which is not news. Their conclusions aren’t as wacky as identifying the conceptual cause of climate change, but they do (as Laurie pointed out) need more data points to connect all these dots and more analysis to avoid falling into the correlation-means-causality trap. Still, I thought it was an interesting point and funny hoax---overall, a case study worth adding to the pile of things that need fixing (maybe this one goes on the “culture of communication” to-do list).
Here’s the conclusion from the Skeptic article if you haven’t read it yet:
Conclusion: A Two-Pronged Problem for Academia
There are at least two deeply troublesome diseases damaging the credibility of the peer-review system in fields such as gender studies:
1. the echo-chamber of morally driven fashionable nonsense coming out of the postmodernist social “sciences” in general, and gender studies departments in particular and
2. the complex problem of pay-to-publish journals with lax standards that cash in on the ultra-competitive publish-or-perish academic environment. At least one of these sicknesses led to “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” being published as a legitimate piece of academic scholarship, and we can expect proponents of each to lay primary blame upon the other.
“The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” underwent a blind peer-review process and yet was accepted for publication. This needs serious explaining. Part of the fault may fall on the open-access, pay-to-publish model, but the rest falls on the entire academic enterprise collectively referred to as “gender studies.” As we see it, gender studies in its current form needs to do some serious housecleaning.
To repeat a critical point, this paper was published in a social science journal that was recommended to us as reputable by a supposedly reliable academic source. Cogent Social Sciences has the trappings of a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. There is no way around the fact that the publication of this paper in such a journal must point to some problem with the current state of academic publishing. The components of the problem are, it seems, reducible to just two: academic misfeasance arising from pay-to-publish, open-access financial decision-making; and unconscionable pseudo-academic inbreeding contaminating, if not defining, the postmodernist theory-based social sciences.
On the other hand, no one is arguing, nor has any reason to argue, that respectable journals like Nature and countless others have adopted a peer-review process that is fundamentally flawed or in any meaningful way corrupt. Much of the peer-review system remains the gold-standard for the advancement of human knowledge. The problem lies within a nebula of marginal journals, predatory pay-to-publish journals, and, possibly to some degree, open-access journals—although it may largely be discipline-specific, as we had originally hoped to discover. This is, after all, not the first time postmodernist academia has fallen for a hoax.
This hoax, however, was rooted in moral and political biases masquerading as rigorous academic theory. Working in a biased environment, we successfully sugarcoated utter nonsense with a combination of fashionable moral sentiments and impenetrable jargon. Cogent Social Sciences happily swallowed the pill. It left utter nonsense easy to disguise.
The publish-or-perish academic environment is its own poison that needs a remedy. It gives rise to predatory profit-driven journals with few or no academic standards that take advantage of legitimate scholars pressured into publishing their work at all costs, even if it is marginal or dubious. Many of these scholars are victims both of a system that is forcing them to publish more papers and to publish them more often, to the detriment of research quality, and of the predatory journals that offer to sell them the illusion of academic prestige. Certainly, we have every reason to suspect that a majority of the other academics who have published in Cogent Social Sciences and other journals in the Cogent Series are genuine scholars who have been cheated by what may be a weak peer-review process with a highly polished edifice. Our question about the fundamental integrity of fields like gender studies seems much more pressing nonetheless.
“The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct” should not have been published on its merits because it was actively written to avoid having any merits whatsoever. The paper is academically worthless nonsense. The question that now needs to be answered is, “How can we restore the reliability of the peer-review process?”
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
Glenn Hampson
This is an intellectual exercise Rick (and everyone), but assume for a moment that we (the royal we---all of us everywhere)---would like to create a system of scholarly communication that is better than the one we have now. It won’t be perfect, realistically---it will have strengths and weaknesses---but it will be better than the one we have, particularly when it comes to open. What combination of fixes do you think will be needed to get there from here?
I’ll go back to my tired salmon analogy (the salmon are tired too) to illustrate. Here in Washington state, our policymakers are trying to increase the size of the salmon run, knowing that many factors affect this---ocean temperatures which are increasing due to climate change, river levels which have been trending lower due to smaller snow packs, dams that need to be retrofitted to allow more fish to get through, culverts that need to be unplugged, agricultural demands for water which need to be balanced against power and fishers needs, fishery demands---both commercial and those prescribed by treaty, hydroelectric power needs and costs, and so on. And on top of all this, federal laws and agencies are in conflict on this matter---treaty rights versus endangered species protection requirements versus agricultural water rights versus electrical power rights versus land rights---not to mention state and local government rights or the practical limits on sweeping action because of the costs involved ($2 billion to unblock culverts alone). There are many stakeholders in this effort, many different needs, and many different points in the system that need fixing. To many in the salmon debate, the hydro dams are the main culprit. Make better fish ladders and we’re 90% of the way toward a solution since about 90% of fish that try to pass through or over a dam are killed by turbines, by the fall, or by predation (mostly by non-native sea lions) at the base of the dam.
Is there a dam in scholarly communication? Multiple dams? Before you jump in a say “dam publishers!”, consider the dam analogy and the ecosystem of scholarly publishing that depends on its various components. The scholcomm ecosystem may indeed look very different some day than in does now, but today---realistically---if we’re trying to fix the biggest problems first, smooth out the smaller ones to the extent we can, and maybe even introduce some form of “auditing” or “oversight” into the system to make sure fraud is kept in check and that adjustments are helping, what fix would we focus on first? If we eliminate impact factors, for instance, are we 90% of the way home? How about eliminating publish or perish “rules”? Or more broadly, if we fix the incentives, will this work? Or are we primed for a major shift in the way science communicates in general because the current system is a two-lane country road that simply wasn’t built to handle interstate traffic volumes?
I realize this is an impossibly broad question. I think we’ll want to do some sort of scenario planning exercise more formally this year and look at all the what if’s for the near and long-term. But for now, just out of curiosity, if one assumes that any widespread change to the scholcomm system is going to be gradual and iterative and that all the pieces that exist now will also exist a year from now (which is not a given, just an assumption), what single change to this current system do you think will create the most benefit (particularly with regard to open)?
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
Rick Anderson
Another important question to ask will be: do the things that look like problems in the context of salmon migration (like, say, hydroelectric dams) look like solutions when placed in the context of another issue (like, say, the need for electricity in a local community)? If so, then fixing the problem for salmon migration may result in creating a problem somewhere else. (As you point out, Glenn, there are many stakeholders and many different needs, some of which are genuinely in tension with each other.) Obviously, this is a principle that has a lot of application in the context of scholcomm, where (for example) one person’s frustrating toll barrier may be another person’s lower conference registration fee.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
From:
<osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Organization: National Science Communication Institute
Date: Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:18 PM
To: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>, 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: another scholarly hoax
This is an intellectual exercise Rick (and everyone), but assume for a moment that we (the royal we---all of us everywhere)---would like to create a system of scholarly communication that is better than the one we have now. It won’t be perfect, realistically---it will have strengths and weaknesses---but it will be better than the one we have, particularly when it comes to open. What combination of fixes do you think will be needed to get there from here?
I’ll go back to my tired salmon analogy (the salmon are tired too) to illustrate. Here in Washington state, our policymakers are trying to increase the size of the salmon run, knowing that many factors affect this---ocean temperatures which are increasing due to climate change, river levels which have been trending lower due to smaller snow packs, dams that need to be retrofitted to allow more fish to get through, culverts that need to be unplugged, agricultural demands for water which need to be balanced against power and fishers needs, fishery demands---both commercial and those prescribed by treaty, hydroelectric power needs and costs, and so on. And on top of all this, federal laws and agencies are in conflict on this matter---treaty rights versus endangered species protection requirements versus agricultural water rights versus electrical power rights versus land rights---not to mention state and local government rights or the practical limits on sweeping action because of the costs involved ($2 billion to unblock culverts alone). There are many stakeholders in this effort, many different needs, and many different points in the system that need fixing. To many in the salmon debate, the hydro dams are the main culprit. Make better fish ladders and we’re 90% of the way toward a solution since about 90% of fish that try to pass through or over a dam are killed by turbines, by the fall, or by predation (mostly by non-native sea lions) at the base of the dam.
Is there a dam in scholarly communication? Multiple dams? Before you jump in a say “dam publishers!”, consider the dam analogy and the ecosystem of scholarly publishing that depends on its various components. The scholcomm ecosystem may indeed look very different some day than in does now, but today---realistically---if we’re trying to fix the biggest problems first, smooth out the smaller ones to the extent we can, and maybe even introduce some form of “auditing” or “oversight” into the system to make sure fraud is kept in check and that adjustments are helping, what fix would we focus on first? If we eliminate impact factors, for instance, are we 90% of the way home? How about eliminating publish or perish “rules”? Or more broadly, if we fix the incentives, will this work? Or are we primed for a major shift in the way science communicates in general because the current system is a two-lane country road that simply wasn’t built to handle interstate traffic volumes?
I realize this is an impossibly broad question. I think we’ll want to do some sort of scenario planning exercise more formally this year and look at all the what if’s for the near and long-term. But for now, just out of curiosity, if one assumes that any widespread change to the scholcomm system is going to be gradual and iterative and that all the pieces that exist now will also exist a year from now (which is not a given, just an assumption), what single change to this current system do you think will create the most benefit (particularly with regard to open)?
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
Laurie Goodman
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@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.
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
<image001.png>
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Glenn Hampson
Exactly Laurie. Not to turn your joke into a serious point, but that’s the $64,000 question (which really dates me, because back when that show was on, $64k was actually a lot of money). We want more salmon now without first figuring out a fair and sustainable system that will make this harvest possible. I hope no one spawns a tweet like “why is open access is like a fish?”---this metaphor is just too complicated to be catchy J
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
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.
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
<image001.png>
--
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.
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
Laurie Goodman
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+unsubscribe@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.
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
<image001.png>
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
Dr Danny Kingsley
Head, Office of Scholarly Communication
Cambridge University Library
West Road, Cambridge CB39DR
P: +44 (0) 1223 747 437
M: +44 (0) 7711 500 564
E: da...@cam.ac.uk
T: @dannykay68
B: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/
S: http://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3636-5939
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@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.
--
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+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Rebecca Kennison
Principal and Executive Director, K|N Consultants
347 746 5931 office
510 541 3119 mobile
r...@knconsultants.org
ORCID: 0000-0002-1401-9808
Web: knconsultants.org and openaccessnetwork.org
Twitter: @KNConsultants and @OA_Network