91% of open access journals are not compliant with Plan S
Glenn Hampson
This research just in: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201901.0165/v1
This isn’t an argument against Plan S, just another observation that the potential impacts haven’t been carefully considered yet.
Rick Anderson
I’m not sure it’s so much that the potential impacts haven’t been considered – I think those impacts are simply regarded as beside the point. Robert-Jan Smits has publicly expressed his disdain for researchers (“Why is Plan S necessary? Because researchers are irresponsibleand his view that learned societies shouldn’t be in the journal-publishing business at all. Since he’s pretty much the only person speaking publicly for Plan S, I think we can safely assume that he sees the non-compliance of these journals as a problem for them to just “bite the bullet” and fix, not as something that indicates a problem with Plan S.
Of course, after yesterday’s sessions of the Academic Publishing Europe meeting in Berlin, it’s no longer clear that anyone—including Smits—actually understands what “compliant” means. The Twitter feed coming out of that meeting was an all-day expression of confusion (sometimes amused, sometimes dismaying) over Plan S compliance questions and Smits’ unwillingness/inability to answer them clearly. Many new questions about compliance were raised and left unanswered, while other issues that had seemed settled prior to the meeting were reopened and left unsettled.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
--
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
Rick Anderson
Smits speaks for Plan S every day, on the record, and everywhere he goes. Most recently, he spoke extensively for Plan S yesterday at the APE meeting.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
David Wojick
Rick Anderson
I’m sorry, David, but you’re mistaken. All of us speak “of” Plan S. Robert-Jan Smits goes all over the world speaking on behalf of it. He is its public face, he is the one interviewed by journalists when they need authoritative information about it, he is the one at conferences answering questions (more or less) about Plan S and its requirements, he is the one representing cOAlition S and its plan in the offices of government officials and funding agencies. He is the one who appointed the leaders of a task force to formulate an implementation plan. He’s the one who traveled to Washington, DC to meet with governmental and private funders in order to enlist their participation in Plan S. (“I’m going for business, not chit-chat,” he said as he embarked on that trip.)
None of that sounds like someone with “no authority whatsoever when it comes to Plan S.” On the contrary, it’s clearly the behavior of someone who is empowered to represent and speak for it.
David Wojick
JJE Esposito
David Wojick
Lisa Hinchliffe
Rick Anderson
To the degree that his job is helping people understand and get on board with Plan S, then recent evidence seems to suggest that he’s doing it quite badly.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
Joe Esposito
Rick Anderson
Understood and agreed. His approach has always seemed high-handed and arrogant to me, and my impression is that he has little regard for the impacts his decisions and pronouncements will have on the broader research community. His expressed attitude –not just towards publishers, but towards researchers and societies, comes across basically as “Tough luck. If you don’t like it, you just need to get with the times.”
Add to this the confusion that his most recent pronouncements have created, and the whole Plan S program seems to be becoming more and more of a mess.
Rick
ANTHONY WATKINSON
----Original message----
From : rick.a...@utah.edu
Date : 18/01/2019 - 16:21 (GMTST)
To : jjoh...@gmail.com
Cc : lisali...@gmail.com, dwo...@craigellachie.us, osi20...@googlegroups.com
Glenn Hampson
Has any more information come to light about how this plan was developed? The public story is that funder reps were involved, plus Science Europe (Marc Schiltz)---that’s what we’ve noted in the report. The private story is that Frontiers was at the table. Do we know any more about how long this thought process took, how many drafts the plan went through, what was considered and rejected, etc.? Is there a record of these proceedings anywhere? For OSI, we’ve left a long and annoying paper trail of dozens of reports and thousands of emails. Is there anything comparable for the Plan S conversation?
Eric L Olson
Not to derail the discussion, but Rick has a point here that I think connects to one of our other conversations:
"he has little regard for the impacts his decisions and pronouncements will have on the broader research community."
The OSI "community", stretching the term a bit, is never, ever going to agree entirely on major decisions. This is baked right into the configuration. Getting everyone in a group to agree on something and throw all of that momentum behind it is powerful, and there are scholcomm groups with this mission. OSI, however, is intended to be a "community of communities"; a convener so that these discussions in the meetings or virtually at least have the potential for recognizing what these other stakeholders feel and how they would react to paths chosen. I think the meetings are fairly representative of this, less so online. But getting caught up in the details of how or why we produce singular products that are not part of that convening function can quickly erode that unique position and vision, creating confusion and internal debate about topics that aren't even scholcomm (or if it is, it's the depressing microcosm of the parts of scholcomm that the high level people we want to attract don't want and shouldn't have to bother with).
This is not to say that there are not manifest products, but that they should emerge from embracing our role as a facilitator and convener. Otherwise, we risk being pelted by the same tomatoes thrown at other actors that have been the subject of scrutiny here, but even worse in that we started from a position with the potential to do something about it.
Eric
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 11:21:35 AM
To: Joe Esposito
Cc: Lisa Hinchliffe; David Wojick; The Open Scholarship Initiative
Glenn Hampson
Agreed and well put Eric. Derailing this conversation one step further, what about our Plan S report? Do we have a responsibility as a community of communities to report the big picture view of a global plan to change scholarly communication? In particular, do we have a responsibility to stand up for our ideals that such a plan should be developed by the community of communities, and not by people---however well-intentioned---who neither represent the global viewpoint nor, apparently, even understand it? I hope our report doesn’t come across as anti-reform---from the feedback I’ve received, I don’t think it does. It does, I think---and I think justifiably so---push back on the enthusiasm for this particular plan as being the global solution, based on our understanding of the myriad issues with the plan. Which isn’t to say that we should go back to square one and wait 20 years for reform---just that we should take this opportunity of heightened interest and enthusiasm to sit down together and talk about a real plan for the future.
Is this an appropriate function for OSI and does this report represent OSI appropriately?
JJE Esposito
Eric L Olson
I really don't know. Feedback has also questioned what "our ideals" can really mean when we bring this many voices to the table. Our ideals, as I saw it, focus on the how we can facilitate the conversations that move the ball in a generally open direction. We are method and procedure. The what and why question, making a determination on the ways that ball progresses up the field, is something we ask, not answer. We create a space where all of these perspectives get to build on each other, and when appropriate interact to keep ideas flowing and positivity intact (something we definitely struggle with). How we then reflect all of this in a useful way is a hard question, but obviously not every voice that has been part of this conversation has felt that they are represented in that particular piece.
Some of those scholcomm questions that have required difficult culture change to acknowledge have revolved around the not so glorious parts of research that might be neglected in favor of getting the paper out there; the procedures, the data, the conversations, and even failures. OSI took on a really tough job of bringing a lot of stakeholders together and facilitating productive conversations. There have been successes and failures, but we accepted a responsibility to do some of that work that might not be so glorious at first in order to unlock something so much bigger. I am concerned about changing that mission, or perceived changes to that mission, due to interpreting answers to the what and why questions, clearly leaving some folks out in the cold rather than providing an environment where they feel that their contribution is welcome. If that happens, it's just an inversion of the original goal and not a failure to grasp our highest aspirations.
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 12:19:18 PM
To: Eric L Olson; 'Rick Anderson'; 'Joe Esposito'
Cc: 'Lisa Hinchliffe'; 'David Wojick'; 'The Open Scholarship Initiative'
Glenn Hampson
This is a helpful, brilliant answer---thank you very much Eric.
There are three distinct phases to OSI’s work, as described in the last several annual reports. Phase 1 (2016-17) has involved trying to understand the global landscape of scholcomm perspectives on open. Phase 2 (2018-19) is action planning. And phase 3 (2020-25) is carrying out actions, monitoring outcomes, and making course corrections. Our mission all along has been to work as a community to first understand the big picture, and then work as a community to come up with a workable path toward the future of open.
I think the tension you’re expressing here is that we aren’t really built for ensuring that we get everyone’s input into developing our action plan. We outlined how this would work once upon a time, but the reality of our engagement as it has developed is that we don’t always hear from everyone and we don’t have a system where we can ensure democratic representation on every important issue. What we’re left with is softer---just trying to discern a sense of the group based on what we’re hearing (both on an off the list). Given this, does this mean we need to change our mission and not work for workable solutions? Or do we continue to move forward?
What concerns me with the approach you’re describing---where we continue to listen but offer no opinions or leadership---is that we forfeit the leadership mantle to people who have less understanding and/or less diverse representation. We can continue to bolster our diversity and our decision-making processes, but we cannot, I think, retreat on the need to share with the world our sense of the collective opinions being expressed in OSI, with the caveat of course that we really don’t know what everyone thinks. The OSI issue briefs we’re starting to produce do this; so too does this Plan S policy perspective. Here, we note that the what and why answers being proposed by some are not necessarily sufficient, and that we should pause and consider these answers more carefully as a global community. Exactly what answers we come up with are another matter. So to a large extent, I think this report is doing exact what you suggest---trying to create a safe space where the world can talk about this plan instead of react to it. We’re not providing the answers---just promoting the need, consistent with our ideals, to have a global conversation about a global plan.
I love what you’re written here---good food for thought.
Thanks,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
Eric L Olson
"Leadership mantle" of what though? I think some of the confusion here is about whom we are in a race against. If it is opinion leadership in scholcomm, I don't think we've demonstrated that we are the top of the dog pile.
If we provide a place that stakeholders truly feel they get value from, then they will gravitate to OSI and the connections this enables will emerge. This seems like action planning to me; people from different silos stumble into people and projects they wouldn't have otherwise and begin conceiving collaborations. We were seeing this happen live and in person in the 2017 meeting and even the group reports are good examples. I just can't see how producing yet another "Here's what we(?) think of Plan S" document, as something that supposedly represents OSI itself and are absolutely everywhere right now, is more exciting and valuable than providing the opportunity for those connections to happen. Being able to demonstrate that OSI brought these people/projects together and playing a part in the observation and amplification of that work is precisely playing the role we took on, and it does so while paralleling what OSI participants are already working on rather than trying to create something completely different. If none of that is happening, seems like we just extended phase 1 to include reflections on that understanding.
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 1:32:26 PM
Glenn Hampson
More good points---thanks Eric.
OSI has been accused by several over the years of having a 10-year time-frame to accomplish what people want accomplished now. We’re definitely methodical. But we do need to transition from more talking to more action---not that the talking will ever end (sorry), but that increasingly so, we need to start talking about how we’re going to get from where we are now to where ever it is we decide to go. This means continuing to facilitate conversations as you point out, but also helping figure out workable goals, and plan collaborative actions. I’m not suggesting that we’re racing with anyone to develop these action plans, but time is important, as is action.
In the absence of timely action, we get ideas like Plan S that have great appeal but lack the necessary thought and substance. And then, rather than working together on viable plans for the future of open, we fight with each other over plans that have not been developed with everyone’s input.
OSI can help---not as a replacement for other efforts, but as a complement and a convener. So here again, I think we’re talking about the same thing, but from different perspectives about what OSI’s highest, best role might be.
I wonder, Eric, if some sort of middle ground on what you’re suggesting (I think) might work here. That is, suppose we just keep the OSI report as an “internal” document. We can put it on the OSI website but make it clearer that this is a thought piece that doesn’t necessarily reflect OSI’s collective opinion (the “about” part of this report does this, but might not be visible enough). Maybe we even change the title from “OSI Policy Perspectives” to something else even less official (the title has already been demoted from “OSI Policy Briefs”)? Then, for our public facing piece on Plan S, we issue a one-page statement that says something to the effect that we have a wide variety of opinions in OSI and a wide variety of perspectives on this plan. Our recommendation is that the global community get together to discuss this plan in detail before approving it. We can add that OSI is committed to open, but also to the need for broad, global stakeholder input and representation.
Lisa Hinchliffe
Glenn Hampson
Definitely applicable with OSI too 😊
Here’s yet another approach that might work---this is what Scott was sort of angling toward back in December but I needed time to come full circle to his same conclusion 30 days later: What if our Plan S report is just more of an opinion piece? Would this satisfy everyone---preserving our objectivity and openness as an organization but at the same time making policy observations and recommendations that emanate from this group, however imperfectly, but may not necessarily speak for this group? To this end, what I suggested before still stands---we publish this report but publicize our summary instead, which simply states that we think the global community needs to meet about this global plan before approving it---that’s the takeaway recommendation. The rest is gravy.
For the report itself, we rename it the “OSI Perspectives” series instead of “OSI Policy Perspectives” (which was “reduced” from “OSI Policy Briefs”). Here’s the series description of how this series compares to OSI issue briefs:
ABOUT OSI PERSPECTIVES
The Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is a diverse, inclusive, global network of high level experts and stakeholder representatives working together in partnership with UNESCO to develop broadly accepted, comprehensive, sustainable solutions to the future of open scholarship that work for everyone everywhere. The OSI Perspectives series attempts to articulate the variety of perspectives on key issues scholarly communication that have been expressed in OSI meetings and conversations. OSI is not a democratic body that speaks with one voice on any particular issue. We acknowledge, therefore, that these reports are imperfect reflections of the many perspectives and ideas in this group. We also acknowledge, however, that since OSI is privileged to consider a wide range of perspectives, it is valuable to produce these reports, however imperfect, and share them with the scholarly communication community and beyond. We also acknowledge that more so than with OSI issue briefs, OSI Perspectives reports may mostly reflect the opinions of individual report authors. The findings and recommendations expressed in these reports do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the authors or all OSI participants, nor their agencies, trustees, officers, or staff. OSI serves as the Network for Open Access to Scientific Information and Research (NOASIR) for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). For more information about OSI, please visit osiglobal.org.
ABOUT OSI ISSUE BRIEFS
The Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is a diverse, inclusive, global network of high level experts and stakeholder representatives working together in partnership with UNESCO to develop broadly accepted, comprehensive, sustainable solutions to the future of open scholarship that work for everyone everywhere. This document reflects the input of the author(s) listed here as well as contributions from other OSI participants. The findings and recommendations expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the authors or all OSI participants, nor their agencies, trustees, officers, or staff. OSI serves as the Network for Open Access to Scientific Information and Research (NOASIR) for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). For more information about OSI, please visit osiglobal.org.
