As our conversation about Plan S, the future of OA, and OSI’s function in the scholcomm environment unfolds, I find myself repeatedly wondering the same thing:
The future of scholcomm will ultimately end up being one of two things: either 100% OA or something less than 100% OA. Does OSI take a position on which of those is the more desirable outcome? If so, which outcome is the one toward which OSI is working?
Some of us have expressed quite clearly a preference for 100% OA (however defined), while others seem to anticipate and accept an outcome in which the scholcomm environment continues to hold a place for non-OA models. It seems to me that where one stands on this question is going to have a big impact on how one regards initiatives like Plan S.
(Please note that this is not a question about how long it will take to become 100% OA, assuming that’s what we want. The question is what we are hoping will ultimately happen, not whether it will take a long time to get there.)
---
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.
Thanks, Joyce. To be clear, I do recognize both that we’ve defined a spectrum of openness, and that a 100% OA future probably can’t be 100% retrospective.
So let me rephrase my question a little bit:
In the future, one of two things will be true: either 100% of scholarship will be promulgated under a fully-OA model, or something less than 100% of scholarship will be promulgated that way. Does OSI take a position on which of these scenarios is the desired one?
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
Hi Rick,
My vote is neither. Our group has evolved on this over time---go back to your original invitation to join OSI and compare it to what we’re talking about now. We’ve discovered that open is about more than just OA, and where we go once we get to open is of critical---and largely neglected---importance.
I’m attaching my slides from SciELO (again, sorry, but may some folks didn’t see this the first time thru). Take a look at the section titled “the future.” That’s the way I see our road ahead---working together for a more open world, knocking down key roadblocks as we move along, building a record of success, and opening up all pathways to open so we can really invigorate this space and realize its full potential.
That, to me, should be our focus----not nickel and diming each other over whether CC-BY is pure, but focusing together on the big picture and the huge potential of open.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 8:32 AM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
--
My use of the word “desirable” was intended to convey the concept of a goal rather than just a prediction.
As for what the point is if the goal is anything other than 100%: the point for some may be a significant increase in the amount of OA content, while preserving the possibility of publication under other models, including paid access. Not everyone in the scholcomm environment (even outside of the publisher community) agrees that the future landscape must be OA-only.
For example, even as noted an OA advocate as Robert Darnton has publicly expressed support for the idea of “non-commercial journals whose sole purpose is to disseminate knowledge” charging “reasonable prices” (https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/05/22/world-digital-library-coming-true/).
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
Hi Rick,
My vote is neither. Our group has evolved on this over time---go back to your original invitation to join OSI and compare it to what we’re talking about now. We’ve discovered that open is about more than just OA, and where we go once we get to open is of critical---and largely neglected---importance.
I’m attaching my slides from SciELO (again, sorry, but may some folks didn’t see this the first time thru). Take a look at the section titled “the future.” That’s the way I see our road ahead---working together for a more open world, knocking down key roadblocks as we move along, building a record of success, and opening up all pathways to open so we can really invigorate this space and realize its full potential.
That, to me, should be our focus----not nickel and diming each other over whether CC-BY is pure, but focusing together on the big picture and the huge potential of open.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 8:32 AM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
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.
I think you hit the nail on the head Mike
So if OSI’s official position is that we take no position on whether the “100% OA” or the “less-than-100% OA” scenario is preferable, then we need to make sure that’s clear to everyone as we discuss issues and initiatives like Plan S (among others). It means that arguments predicated on either “we should do X because it’s more likely to lead to 100% OA” or “we should do Y because it’s more likely to preserve a more mixed and diverse environment of access models” are probably not going to be productive in the context of OSI discussions, since OSI isn’t actually committed to either “100% OA” or “less-than-100% OA.”
Does that sound right?
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
Nope, I was asking what I asked: does OSI, as a group, take a position on the question I posed? (Recognizing, of course, that there’s a diversity of views among the individual participants.)
One reason I felt it was important to ask that question is because it looks to me like so many of the arguments being made in our recent conversations about Plan S seem to be based on the assumption that OSI does have a position on that issue. So I wanted to see whether there’s been a shift of some kind in our collective position as an organization.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
Right, the question “Who speaks for OSI?” is important too. It’s separate from “What would that person say if asked OSI’s position on the 100% question?”, but it’s still important.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
No---and sorry if I’m being thick-headed here Rick. OSI is committed to helping build a more open world, and now. And realistically---not someone’s unilateral vision of open but a global, collaborative, sustainable model that will actually work. Will open end up being 100 percent with this model? Who knows. Probably not. Will it be 90 percent? Okay---that sounds better. But the point is to aim for high function, not high numbers. Where are we going with all this open after all? If we can align incentives, as Vint Cerf advised us at OSI2017, then we can build a self-sustaining, self-regulating, self-empowering system where researchers are racing to join open and using open because doing so is in their best interests. If we do anything less and create frameworks that rely on mandates and penalties and solutions that people don’t like and try to wiggle out of using, then we are forever stuck at 80 percent-ish compliance with 20% exceptions and 100% eye-rolling about why things need to be this way. There is no energy in the system, no alignment, and no future apart from simply creating vast troves of nominally usable material.
Does this make sense? I know I tend to ramble….
Right, which would suggest that the answer may (still) be “As a group, we don’t take a position on whether the 100% scenario or the less-than-100% scenario is preferable.” Which I think would be something worth surfacing in the context of our current conversations.
We do Joyce. The summit group is empowered to do this, and set a clear agenda for 2018. The governance plan from OSI2017 is being rewritten at the moment by this group and hopefully (maybe in January) will be circulated again for comment/revision.
Hi, Glenn –
You’re not being thick-headed at all, but your response does veer away from my question (“What do we see as the more desirable of the two possible future scenarios?”) towards a different one (“Which of those two scenarios do we think is the most likely or practical?”).
Both of those questions are important, but they’re not the same.
Of course, the answer to my question may be “Neither. OSI doesn’t take a position on whether the future of scholcomm ought to be 100% OA or less than 100% OA.” Whatever our answer is, it has important implications for the discussions we’re having right now about policies and mandates. For example, if we don’t take a position as to the desirability of a 100% OA future, then the argument “We must support Plan S because it helps move us towards a complete transition to OA” becomes less powerful in the context of OSI. (And the reverse would be true as well, obviously – if we do take a position on that question, then that argument becomes more or less powerful depending on the position.)
Yes. We don’t have a summit meeting scheduled for December due to the fact that there’s a small holiday coming up and our volunteer community deserves a day or two of rest (but no more 😊). The next opportunity to meet will be January, which will still be timely; I may try to organize something else before then, however, but still into early January.
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Joyce Ogburn
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 9:44 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Hi Rick,
You’re asking a good question that really may be fundamental (along with Mike’s earlier comment about perceptions of system collapse and the need for government intervention).
I’ll take one more swipe at this and then shut up because I want people to read my next email (coming in a few minutes). As a group, I don’t think OSI should take a position on whether the 100% scenario or the less-than-100% scenario is preferable, because I think this question itself is false. Plan S will NOT result in 100% open---no plan will. It will result in a push toward open, but this push will get pushback and the net will at best be something akin to PubMed Central, which (I think) has around 85%-ish compliance (and this is with copyright and embargos allowed). To posit that Plan S will result in 100% open just because it says it will achieve 100% open is false---it’s going to aim for this, but it will achieve less.
So, I think my dissent here is that we should be realistic about this challenge and aim for a solutions that are going to achieve MUCH more open than now, that bring more support on board (including the US)---and remember, this means more open---that lower the risk of unintended consequences, and that act to catalyze and synergize the marketplace rather than intervene in it (although some amount of regulation may be helpful here).
Clear as mud part 2?
Thanks, Glenn. Just to clarify one point:
The question I’ve posed isn’t false: logically, the two future scenarios I’ve outlined are the only two possible. Either we’ll eventually end up with a 100% OA future, or we’ll eventually end up with a less-than-100% OA future.
Of course you’re right that Plan S itself will not determine which of those futures arrives. However, if OSI is not going to take a position on which of those futures is the most desirable, then that does have implications for the ways we discuss Plan S in the context of OSI. Anyone should feel free to discuss Plan S in any way that seems right to them, obviously – but if OSI is explicitly not taking a position in favor of a 100%-OA future, then (for example) arguments in favor of Plan S based on its capacity to move us towards that future will carry less weight in the context of OSI discussions.
Got it (I think). Yes, we’re totally in favor of a 100% open future---we’re not aiming for a “better than now” future because that’s going to happen anyway, so why bother? I don’t mean to be flip with this analogy, but I guess it’s like saying I plan to get rich by pulling the handle on a $1,000 slot machine versus working hard on a solid and achievable plan. The first plan might work but it really isn’t a plan, just a desperate gamble. No hate mail please---just making an illustration.
OK, great. Thanks very much for clarifying that, Glenn.
There is no "system" of scholarly communications. What there is is a diverse, multifaceted environment that is dynamic. It is delivering on a level that boggles the mind. We live in a period of intellectual genius, and publishing--toll, open, sponsored-- plays a huge role in it. Years from now we will look back and say, with Wordsworth, that bliss it was that dawn to be alive.
Joe Esposito
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:00 PM Roy, Michael D. <md...@middlebury.edu> wrote:
- If we are going to ask ourselves some foundational questions about basic assumptions and goals, one of the key assumptions that I suspect we do not have agreement on is the current health of the system of scholarly communication. It would be fascinating to poll the membership/participants as to whether or not they agree with a statement like "The current state of the system of scholarly communication is broken." In my interactions with OSI, I run into some who share my belief that the system is broken, and others who think that that is an over-statement. That in turn speaks to the question of urgency.Â
- My read on Plan S, independent of the details of implementation, is that it is a sign of a market failure. Funding agencies are declaring the current system to be fundamentally broken, and using the power of the purse to intervene.Â
- Mike
- Michael Roy
- Dean of the Library
- Middlebury College
- mobile: 860 301 2611
- twitter: @michaeldroy
- skype: Â roymichaeldonald
- zoom:Â https://middlebury.zoom.us/my/mikeroyÂ
- free/busy calendar https://beta.doodle.com/mikeroy
- On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:52 AM Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- Hi Rick,
- Â
- My vote is neither. Our group has evolved on this over time---go back to your original invitation to join OSI and compare it to what we’re talking about now. We’ve discovered that open is about more than just OA, and where we go once we get to open is of critical---and largely neglected---importance.
- Â
- I’m attaching my slides from SciELO (again, sorry, but may some folks didn’t see this the first time thru). Take a look at the section titled “the future.†That’s the way I see our road ahead---working together for a more open world, knocking down key roadblocks as we move along, building a record of success, and opening up all pathways to open so we can really invigorate this space and realize its full potential.
- Â
- That, to me, should be our focus----not nickel and diming each other over whether CC-BY is pure, but focusing together on the big picture and the huge potential of open.
- Â
- Best,
- Â
- Glenn
- Â
- Â
- Glenn Hampson
- Executive Director
- Science Communication Institute (SCI)
- Program Director
- Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
- Â
- Â
- Â
- From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
- Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 8:32 AM
- To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: Basic question about Plan S, OSI, and universal OA
- Â
- As our conversation about Plan S, the future of OA, and OSI’s function in the scholcomm environment unfolds, I find myself repeatedly wondering the same thing:
- Â
- The future of scholcomm will ultimately end up being one of two things: either 100% OA or something less than 100% OA. Does OSI take a position on which of those is the more desirable outcome? If so, which outcome is the one toward which OSI is working?
- Â
- Some of us have expressed quite clearly a preference for 100% OA (however defined), while others seem to anticipate and accept an outcome in which the scholcomm environment continues to hold a place for non-OA models. It seems to me that where one stands on this question is going to have a big impact on how one regards initiatives like Plan S.
- Â
- (Please note that this is not a question about how long it will take to become 100% OA, assuming that’s what we want. The question is what we are hoping will ultimately happen, not whether it will take a long time to get there.)
- Â
- ---
- Rick Anderson
- Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
- Marriott Library, University of Utah
- Desk: (801) 587-9989
- Cell: (801) 721-1687
- rick.a...@utah.edu
- Â
On Dec 17, 2018, at 11:33 AM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
No---and sorry if I’m being thick-headed here Rick. OSI is committed to helping build a more open world, and now. And realistically---not someone’s unilateral vision of open but a global, collaborative, sustainable model that will actually work. Will open end up being 100 percent with this model? Who knows. Probably not. Will it be 90 percent? Okay---that sounds better. But the point is to aim for high function, not high numbers. Where are we going with all this open after all? If we can align incentives, as Vint Cerf advised us at OSI2017, then we can build a self-sustaining, self-regulating, self-empowering system where researchers are racing to join open and using open because doing so is in their best interests. If we do anything less and create frameworks that rely on mandates and penalties and solutions that people don’t like and try to wiggle out of using, then we are forever stuck at 80 percent-ish compliance with 20% exceptions and 100% eye-rolling about why things need to be this way. There is no energy in the system, no alignment, and no future apart from simply creating vast troves of nominally usable material.Does this make sense? I know I tend to ramble….Best,GlennGlenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
As long as we’re philosophizing here…
So, what’s been postulated here so far is that there are three fundamental perception differences that we need to understand and bridge:
Does this sound right? To these three, I would suggest adding a third: Morality. We debated the moral aspects of open at OSI2016. To what degree is open a moral issue (without getting sidetracked too deeply into the double-dipping question because that can be argued both ways)? This is more like the description of open that Abel likes to use---that open science is a pubic good (not in the economic sense, but in the cultural sense).
Is there more?
How does Plan S stack up? Where do we align and where does the conversation (globally) need more clarity and understanding? This is kind of a deeper look at the alignment question Rick suggested a few days ago (alignment on principles, policies, etc.).
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
It’s the royal we Scott---just me and my ego. Naturally, we (the OSI we) need to discuss this as a group before breaking out the parchment paper.
From: T Scott Plutchak <splu...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 12:31 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Those look like pretty good formulations to me, Glenn.
With regard to the “morality” parameter, I’d add maybe another layer: it’s not just about the morality of open access itself, but also about the moral use of power. This connects back to item 3, which you’ve framed as “Ownership” but could maybe also be framed as “Control.” In other words, let’s assume that all of us agree that open access is more morally defensible than paid access. That doesn’t mean we’re all going to agree that every proposed OA program is therefore more moral than a paid-access program – because there are other moral parameters at play as well.
In the context of Plan S, one of the parameters that has generated really intense conversation recently is the rights of authors. Many of us believe that letting authors maintain some level of control over their work is also, to a very real degree, a moral issue. And that means that our situation is a classic one in which we’re arguing about how best to balance the rights of individuals with the obligations of individuals to serve the best interests of the community.
These situations always pose (at least) two classes of problem:
1. Do we agree as to what “the best interests of the community” are?
2. Assuming we do, then do we agree about the degree to which individuals ought to be free to make decisions that don’t serve the best interests of the community?
We deal with these problems in society all the time. Speed limits, compulsory education, tax laws, etc. all reflect decisions that we’ve made as a society about where the right balance is between freedom and coercion, and between the rights of individuals and the needs of society. Plan S is generating controversy not only because there are mixed opinions about whether Plan S serves the best interests of the community, but also because there are mixed opinions about how to balance the rights of individuals with community obligations.
---
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>
Date: Monday, December 17, 2018 at 2:08 PM
To: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>, 'JJE Esposito' <jjoh...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Basic question about Plan S, OSI, and universal OA
As long as we’re philosophizing here…
So, what’s been postulated here so far is that there are three fundamental perception differences that we need to understand and bridge:
1. The issue of urgency (i.e., is the system broken and what does this mean for different people---escalating library costs, undiscoverable work, poor transparency, etc.)
2. The issue of goals (are we aiming for completely open research processes or just OA, totally open now or by 15 years, etc.), and
3. Ownership (who has the right to fix this for everyone, on what authority, who decides, what interests get considered, etc.)
I think you’d have to be very careful with the language of your questions on this front to get any useful results. Example:
I’ve been an academic librarian for over 30 years. Do I think the system is broken? No. Authors do research and write papers. Those papers get peer reviewed and some percentage of them get published. Some subset of people are able to access and read those papers. So at least _to a degree_ the existing system works.
But I easily see where some players within that system, myself among them, would at the very least describe the current system as reasonably dysfunctional in certain respects.
So WHAT you ask on this front will be all-important to getting useful results. It would also be good to be able to sort the results by “industry” or location of respondent, so that one can see how the responses from librarians compare to those of publishers or how responses from the global south compare to responses from survey participants in other areas.
Whether you consider a system as complex as that of scholarly communication to be “broken”, or to what degree it is broken, will almost assuredly depend on your points of intersection with that system.
Mel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mel DeSart (he/him/his)
Head, Engineering Library
University of Washington des...@u.washington.edu
Box 352170 voice: 206-685-8369
Seattle, WA 98195-2170 fax: 206-543-3305
“It is not written in the stars that I will always understand what is going
on -- a truism that I often find damnably annoying."
Robert A. Heinlein, from his novel "Friday"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roy, Michael D.
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 9:00 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Basic question about Plan S, OSI, and universal OA
If we are going to ask ourselves some foundational questions about basic assumptions and goals, one of the key assumptions that I suspect we do not have agreement on is the current health of the system of scholarly communication. It would be fascinating to poll the membership/participants as to whether or not they agree with a statement like "The current state of the system of scholarly communication is broken." In my interactions with OSI, I run into some who share my belief that the system is broken, and others who think that that is an over-statement. That in turn speaks to the question of urgency.
My read on Plan S, independent of the details of implementation, is that it is a sign of a market failure. Funding agencies are declaring the current system to be fundamentally broken, and using the power of the purse to intervene.
Mike
Michael Roy
Dean of the Library
Middlebury College
mobile: 860 301 2611
twitter: @michaeldroy
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:52 AM Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
Hi Rick,
My vote is neither. Our group has evolved on this over time---go back to your original invitation to join OSI and compare it to what we’re talking about now. We’ve discovered that open is about more than just OA, and where we go once we get to open is of critical---and largely neglected---importance.
I’m attaching my slides from SciELO (again, sorry, but may some folks didn’t see this the first time thru). Take a look at the section titled “the future.” That’s the way I see our road ahead---working together for a more open world, knocking down key roadblocks as we move along, building a record of success, and opening up all pathways to open so we can really invigorate this space and realize its full potential.
That, to me, should be our focus----not nickel and diming each other over whether CC-BY is pure, but focusing together on the big picture and the huge potential of open.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
I love this Ginny. But I thought you supported Plan S as written? If you don’t, how would you go about saying that you (and/or AOASG) support the plan but also support taking a closer look at some elements of it?
Thanks for weighing in---I’ve been waiting years for this moment!! 😊
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
Systems need not be centrally controlled, Joe. Hog farming is a system, so is commuting to work. A system is parts acting together to achieve a goal. Consider the monetary system. Scholarly communication is indeed a system, albeit a decentralized one.
However, claiming that a system that has been working for hundreds of years is suddenly "broken" is something of a hyperbolic advocacy device. It is one thing to want progress, but quite another to demonize reality as "broken." As Joe says, the system of scholarly communication is doing just fine. That is actually the problem when it comes to the fundamental change that some people want. Nothing is actually broken so there is little pressure to change. There are millions of researchers and tens of thousands of journals happily cranking away.
David
Inside Plan S
At 02:17 PM 12/17/2018, JJE Esposito wrote:
There is no "system" of scholarly communications. What there is is a diverse, multifaceted environment that is dynamic. It is delivering on a level that boggles the mind. We live in a period of intellectual genius, and publishing--toll, open, sponsored-- plays a huge role in it. Years from now we will look back and say, with Wordsworth, that bliss it was that dawn to be alive.
Joe Esposito
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:00 PM Roy, Michael D. <md...@middlebury.edu> wrote:
- If we are going to ask ourselves some foundational questions about basic assumptions and goals, one of the key assumptions that I suspect we do not have agreement on is the current health of the system of scholarly communication. It would be fascinating to poll the membership/participants as to whether or not they agree with a statement like "The current state of the system of scholarly communication is broken." In my interactions with OSI, I run into some who share my belief that the system is broken, and others who think that that is an over-statement. That in turn speaks to the question of urgency.Â
- My read on Plan S, independent of the details of implementation, is that it is a sign of a market failure. Funding agencies are declaring the current system to be fundamentally broken, and using the power of the purse to intervene.Â
- Mike
- Michael Roy
- Dean of the Library
- Middlebury College
- mobile: 860 301 2611
- twitter: @michaeldroy
- skype: Â roymichaeldonald
- zoom:Â https://middlebury.zoom.us/my/mikeroyÂ
- free/busy calendar https://beta.doodle.com/mikeroy
- On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:52 AM Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- Hi Rick,
- Â
- My vote is neither. Our group has evolved on this over time---go back to your original invitation to join OSI and compare it to what we’re talking about now. We’ve discovered that open is about more than just OA, and where we go once we get to open is of critical---and largely neglected---importance.
- Â
- I’m attaching my slides from SciELO (again, sorry, but may some folks didn’t see this the first time thru). Take a look at the section titled “the future.†That’s the way I see our road ahead---working together for a more open world, knocking down key roadblocks as we move along, building a record of success, and opening up all pathways to open so we can really invigorate this space and realize its full potential.
- Â
- That, to me, should be our focus----not nickel and diming each other over whether CC-BY is pure, but focusing together on the big picture and the huge potential of open.
- Â
- Best,
- Â
- Glenn
- Â
- Â
- Glenn Hampson
- Executive Director
- Science Communication Institute (SCI)
- Program Director
- Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
- Â
- Â
- Â
- From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
- Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 8:32 AM
- To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: Basic question about Plan S, OSI, and universal OA
- Â
- As our conversation about Plan S, the future of OA, and OSI’s function in the scholcomm environment unfolds, I find myself repeatedly wondering the same thing:
- Â
- The future of scholcomm will ultimately end up being one of two things: either 100% OA or something less than 100% OA. Does OSI take a position on which of those is the more desirable outcome? If so, which outcome is the one toward which OSI is working?
- Â
- Some of us have expressed quite clearly a preference for 100% OA (however defined), while others seem to anticipate and accept an outcome in which the scholcomm environment continues to hold a place for non-OA models. It seems to me that where one stands on this question is going to have a big impact on how one regards initiatives like Plan S.
- Â
- (Please note that this is not a question about how long it will take to become 100% OA, assuming that’s what we want. The question is what we are hoping will ultimately happen, not whether it will take a long time to get there.)
- Â
- ---
- Rick Anderson
- Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
- Marriott Library, University of Utah
- Desk: (801) 587-9989
- Cell: (801) 721-1687
- rick.a...@utah.edu
- Â
Habermasian? What a great vocabulary word. Thanks Mike! I’ve been called Dr. Pangloss before but I like Habermasian way better 😊
You’re exactly right about the inequities in the system. Inefficiencies too. We can do better. That’s why we’re all here reading this email instead of watching Monday Night Football (well, actually, I’m doing both).
But to get from here to there, dialogue is all we have here at the moment, to be followed soon by action flowing from this dialogue (which to me anyway is incomparably better than action flowing from no dialogue, or no action at all).
If you read the OSI reports---where publishers, librarians, policy wonks, society officials, researchers and more sat down for days on end and talked about the future of impact factors, peer review, etc., you’ll see a tremendous amount of common ground. There are often more differences within these groups than between them, as OSI2017 participants noted. This is working, but people still persist in saying it won’t. You aren’t the first to criticize this effort for being fantasy, or for being in the pocket of special interests (didn’t we just do this yesterday?), and you probably won’t be the last, but I do grow weary of the attitude that we shouldn’t even try. Sorry. Or are you saying we should try but (a) you’re just tired of talking, which is understandable, or (b) action needs to be unilateral because anything collaborative just won’t happen---also understandable.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Roy, Michael D.
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 6:53 PM
To: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Mike, how confident are you that you’re accurately representing the views held by all of these various subsets of the scholcomm community?
For example, on what do you base your assertion that the faculty and students served by academic librarians would agree with you that the system is broken?
---
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 "Roy, Michael D." <md...@middlebury.edu>
Date: Monday, December 17, 2018 at 7:52 PM
To: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
Has anyone asked them, in any kind of organized way?
To be clear, I’m not denying that they would respond this way. I’m just not sure we can assume they would, and I feel like there are an awful lot of big assumptions floating around about what different subsets of the scholcomm community think about things.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
I think (if I’m recalling correctly here Rick) there are a number of good researcher surveys out there already---I’ll try to dig some up tomorrow unless someone beats me to it (Anthony probably has a stack of these on his desk already; maybe our publisher colleagues on this list would be willing to share some resources they’re aware of as well). Generally (if I recall), early career researchers are more frustrated with the current system and more interested in open options because it’s harder to get published in big journals and the pressure to publish is intense---they need options. At the same time, these young researchers are also big fans of the current system because they need it get ahead (everyone says publish a blog post, etc., but the career benefits are still way bigger for publishing an article in Nature that gets media coverage). Tenured researchers tend to care less, and are less likely to rock the establishment boat because it serves them well as is, thank you---they have fewer challenges getting published, have a longer track record of publishing so they don’t need more articles to impress grant agencies, etc. And then there are wide variations by age, field, institution, region, etc. Sorry if this is incorrect---I think it’s right but will look for sources.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
Thanks, Glenn – it would be good to gather links to all of these studies and put them together somewhere.
That being said, one thing that makes me kind of skeptical is all these “becauses.” It’s one thing to demonstrate that faculty do or don’t believe the scholcomm system is functional; it’s another thing to demonstrate (as opposed to make assertions about) _why_ they hold the views they do. One refrain that I hear over and over again is “Well, of course established academics support the current system. They like it because it’s given them job security and prestige.” But how do we know that those who support the current system support it because it’s given them prestige, rather than because they genuinely believe it works reasonably well for its intended purpose? (Or for some other reason—or for a combination of reasons?)
I think it would be really interesting to survey faculty and researchers not only about whether and to what degree they think the current scholcomm system is either functional or broken, but also about _why_ they hold those views. I’d be interested to know whether anyone has done a study on that already. I’ll poke around and see if I can find something along those lines, but I feel like I probably would have seen it cited somewhere if it already existed...
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
Habermasian? What a great vocabulary word. Thanks Mike! I’ve been called Dr. Pangloss before but I like Habermasian way better 😊
You’re exactly right about the inequities in the system. Inefficiencies too. We can do better. That’s why we’re all here reading this email instead of watching Monday Night Football (well, actually, I’m doing both).
But to get from here to there, dialogue is all we have here at the moment, to be followed soon by action flowing from this dialogue (which to me anyway is incomparably better than action flowing from no dialogue, or no action at all).
If you read the OSI reports---where publishers, librarians, policy wonks, society officials, researchers and more sat down for days on end and talked about the future of impact factors, peer review, etc., you’ll see a tremendous amount of common ground. There are often more differences within these groups than between them, as OSI2017 participants noted. This is working, but people still persist in saying it won’t. You aren’t the first to criticize this effort for being fantasy, or for being in the pocket of special interests (didn’t we just do this yesterday?), and you probably won’t be the last, but I do grow weary of the attitude that we shouldn’t even try. Sorry. Or are you saying we should try but (a) you’re just tired of talking, which is understandable, or (b) action needs to be unilateral because anything collaborative just won’t happen---also understandable.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Roy, Michael D.
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 6:53 PM
To: David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us>
David and Joe, I would agree that the system is doing just fine, for certain people. Those would include commercial publishers enjoying profits that rival Apple, scholarly societies who subsidize their operations with their journals, faculty whose reputations are made through being published in a-list journals, tenure committees who rely on journal impact factor as a proxy for quality of their faculty, and consultants who make a living advising all of the above. Those who would say it is broken include librarians who can no longer afford to license what their communities need, faculty and students served by these librarians, indendent scholars and community members with no institutional affiliations, start up journals struggling to break into the prestige economy. Which is to say that it all depends on your subject position. And this is why the whole Habermasian public sphere fantasy that we can all just work this out through dialogue seems hopeless at best, and in my cynical moments, the strategy of those trying to maintain the status quo with modest tweaks around the edges. There are winners and losers in this system and another view of Plan S is that it is an effort to change the rules to level the playing field to allow for a more egalitarian system. The current set of winners never like that, be they publishers or hog farmers.
Mike
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:11 PM David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us > wrote:
- Systems need not be centrally controlled, Joe. Hog farming is a system, so is commuting to work. A system is parts acting together to achieve a goal. Consider the monetary system. Scholarly communication is indeed a system, albeit a decentralized one.
- However, claiming that a system that has been working for hundreds of years is suddenly "broken" is something of a hyperbolic advocacy device. It is one thing to want progress, but quite another to demonize reality as "broken." As Joe says, the system of scholarly communication is doing just fine. That is actually the problem when it comes to the fundamental change that some people want. Nothing is actually broken so there is little pressure to change. There are millions of researchers and tens of thousands of journals happily cranking away.
- David
- Inside Plan S
- At 02:17 PM 12/17/2018, JJE Esposito wrote:
- There is no "system" of scholarly communications. What there is is a diverse, multifaceted environment that is dynamic. It is delivering on a level that boggles the mind. We live in a period of intellectual genius, and publishing--toll, open, sponsored-- plays a huge role in it. Years from now we will look back and say, with Wordsworth, that bliss it was that dawn to be alive.
- Joe Esposito
- On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 12:00 PM Roy, Michael D. <md...@middlebury.edu> wrote:
- If we are going to ask ourselves some foundational questions about basic assumptions and goals, one of the key assumptions that I suspect we do not have agreement on is the current health of the system of scholarly communication. It would be fascinating to poll the membership/participants as to whether or not they agree with a statement like "The current state of the system of scholarly communication is broken." In my interactions with OSI, I run into some who share my belief that the system is broken, and others who think that that is an over-statement. That in turn speaks to the question of urgency.Â
- My read on Plan S, independent of the details of implementation, is that it is a sign of a market failure. Funding agencies are declaring the current system to be fundamentally broken, and using the power of the purse to intervene.Â
- Mike
- Michael Roy
- Dean of the Library
- Middlebury College
- mobile: 860 301 2611
- twitter: @michaeldroy
- skype: Â roymichaeldonald
- zoom:Â https://middlebury.zoom.us/my/mikeroyÂ
- free/busy calendar https://beta.doodle.com/mikeroy
- On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:52 AM Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- Hi Rick,
- Â
- My vote is neither. Our group has evolved on this over time---go back to your original invitation to join OSI and compare it to what we̢۪re talking about now. We̢۪ve discov discovered that open is about more than just OA, and where we go once we get to open is of critical---and largely neglected---importance.
- Â
- I’m attaching my slides from SciELO (again,in, sorry, but may some folks didn’t see this the firstrst time thru). Take a look at the section titled “the fututure.†That’s the way I see our road ahad ahead---working together for a more open world, knocking down key roadblocks as we move along, building a record of success, and opening up all pathways to open so we can really invigorate this space and realize its full potential.
- Â
- That, to me, should be our focus----not nickel and diming each other over whether CC-BY is pure, but focusing together on the big picture and the huge potential of open.
- Â
- Best,
- Â
- Glenn
- Â
- Â
- Glenn Hampson
- Executive Director
- Science Communication Institute (SCI)
- Program Director
- Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
- Â
- Â
- Â
- From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
- Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 8:32 AM
- To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: Basic question about Plan S, OSI, and universal OA
- Â
- As our conversation about Plan S, the future of OA, and OSI̢۪s function in the scholcomm environment unfolds, I find md myself repeatedly wondering the same thing:
- Â
- The future of scholcomm will ultimately end up being one of two things: either 100% OA or something less than 100% OA. Does OSI take a position on which of those is the more desirable outcome? If so, which outcome is the one toward which OSI is working?
- Â
- Some of us have expressed quite clearly a preference for 100% OA (however defined), while others seem to anticipate and accept an outcome in which the scholcomm environment continues to hold a place for non-OA models. It seems to me that where one stands on this question is going to have a big impact on how one regards initiatives like Plan S.
- Â
- (Please note that this is not a question about how long it will take to become 100% OA, assuming that̢۪s what we want. t. The question is what we are hoping will ultimately happen, not whether it will take a long time to get there.)
- Â
- ---
- Rick Anderson
- Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
- Marriott Library, University of Utah
- Desk: (801) 587-9989
- Cell: (801) 721-1687
- rick.a...@utah.edu
- Â
Dear Friends,
I want to support David in this discussion. The systemic nature of scholarly publications is not simply a semantic turn. I study the system as a system and it has measureable systemic qualities. As a system, it has developed over centuries, adapting to social changes along the way. It is in the process of adapting to the demands for openness. The efforts to ‘force’ it open with Plan S actually threaten to do serious damage. It is a self-organizing system, and efforts to impose a change of order to self-organizing systems often have destructive outcomes. Better to encourage the adaptations underway (i.e., preprints, repositories). I realize that costs are at issue for librarians, but these can be eased along rather than torn from their moorings.
Caroline Wagner
This is one of the reasons I really like the term “ecosystem” to describe scholarly communication. It’s a classic business ecosystem: a “network of organizations – including suppliers, distributors, customers, competitors, government agencies and so on—involved in the delivery of a specific product or service through both competition and cooperation” (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/business-ecosystem.asp).
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
Hi Mike,
It really is a fascinating dive. I’m not sure how much patience everyone here has for too much back and forth on it so I’ll make one last observation and then bow out. (Rick and Ilona are cooking up a survey on this general issue---it will be fun to see what OSIers think; I’ll do a drawing for a $50 Amazon gift card---which you can use to purchase Rick’s new book 😊---for those who take the survey.)
In general, I hear echoes of the Bernie Sanders approach in your argument---that corporations can’t possibly be responsible and responsive members of society. In the case of large commercial publishers, they have co-opted the system, are blocking reforms, gouging customers, perverting the scientific process, etc.---or so the argument goes. It’s a visceral argument. I used to buy it myself before publishers started paying me to do their dirty work I started learning more about all the different perspectives in OSI.
One could also argue, however (not more accurately, just differently), that it’s really universities and researchers who hold all the cards here---they just don’t know it yet. And the reason they haven’t risen en masse against the current system is because it’s so ingrained, as Caroline notes. It’s part of the fabric of academia, and serves the system well, which isn’t to say it’s perfect or should be static---far from it. But the publishing system (and publishers) responds to the needs of universities and researchers, and as their needs change, so does the system.
So, “resistance” to change is partly inertia, partly entanglement, and partly a lack of uniform and coordinated pressure (based on unmet needs) to change. Maybe the tragedy of the commons is the best parallel here---where we all recognize the need to reduce our carbon footprint but still want to drive our SUVs. We all recognize the ideal of open, but the system is also built on deep moorings and lifting it from these to try something new is a bold/reckless/futile/only-possible-solution (pick your adjective) approach---it’s a need we’d like to address, but actually getting there is going to take a combination of innovative approaches (incentives, restrictions, options, awareness, remediation, etc.---all of the above---plus patience :).
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Roy, Michael D.
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 5:55 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
> So, “resistance” to change is partly inertia, partly entanglement, and partly a
> lack of uniform and coordinated pressure (based on unmet needs) to change.
I suspect that it’s also partly an informed and principled disagreement on the part of some members of the system that either the system is actually broken, or that the proposed fixes are the right ones.
As always, we need to bear in mind that people don’t always resist change because they’re lazy, or because they’re reactionary. Sometimes they’re completely in favor of change in principle, but don’t think the thing under examination is actually broken. And sometimes what they don’t like are the particular changes being proposed, and they would be very open to different ones.
---
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>
Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2018 at 10:43 AM
To: "'Roy, Michael D.'" <md...@middlebury.edu>
Good point, Rick. I would also add one element to the last paragraph:
>As always, we need to bear in mind that people don’t always resist change because they’re lazy, or because
they’re reactionary. Sometimes they’re completely in favor of change in principle, but don’t think the thing under examination is actually broken. And sometimes what they don’t like are the particular changes being proposed, and they would be very open to
different ones.
Also affecting how people react to proposed changes is WHO proposes the changes. The always vocal OA advocates are advocating OA again? That's great, but unlikely to change any minds. Representatives of communities that are often excluded in those discussions or come out on "the other side" advocating or proposing the changes? Now you have a shot at catalyzation of some kind.
As the old Vulcan proverb goes, "Only Nixon could go to China".
Eric