RE: Common Ground paper
Glenn Hampson
---just a quick follow up to those of you who may be looking at this document. I’ve had a rough time getting the introduction right. The latest version is pasted below (more recent that in the pdf version I sent earlier today). Hopefully this is an improvement:
INTRODUCTION
Scholarly communication is a broad field. Many different organizations operate in this space, tackling a dizzying array of connected issues from open access[1] to peer review to impact factors, institutional repositories, capacity building in the global south, and research replicability.
Some of this work is coordinated, much is not. As a result, a wide variety of agendas and definitions have emerged which are sometimes incompatible, even conflicting, meaning a community that could be working in common cause to improve the future of research is instead often at odds, debating whose definitions are the most legitimate, which groups are welcome (or not), and whose vision should rule.
In OSI, we have been observing and debating this diversity since late 2014. Over this time, most of the participants in this group have concluded that four main beliefs define the common ground in this space:
1. Research and society will benefit from open done right
2. Successful solutions will require broad collaboration
3. Connected issues need to be addressed, and
4. Open isn’t a single outcome, but a spectrum.
These are OSI’s conclusions, though. What do you think? The quest for common ground won’t necessarily benefit from OSI telling the world what common ground looks like or what solutions we think will solve the world’s problems. Judgements like these need to be made by the full scholarly communication community working together, and not just one group, however diverse. What might help, however, is for us to advocate that---based on our expertise and experience working together on this challenge for the past five years---common ground in this debate does in fact exist, and also recommend that it would behoove all of us to begin building on this ground together, starting now, toward a better and brighter future.
To argue the case, this paper will begin by reviewing why common ground matters here. It will then briefly review the history of scholarly communication debate; the dynamics of our community’s current relationship; what “common ground” even means from a policy approach; possible areas of common ground; policy approaches that might help get us where we want to be; and what our common end goal might be. That’s a lot of material, probably more befitting a book than a short paper, but hopefully this quick tour will suffice for most readers.
Speaking of whom, there’s a lot in this paper that scholarly communication experts already know, a lot that may be omitted, and a lot that may be summarized in a way that doesn’t do complete justice to one perspective or another. These inaccuracies, where and if they exist, aren’t intentional or malicious. The goal of this paper isn’t to completely and perfectly recount all sides of the various arguments and issues that exist in this space, but to illustrate scholarly communication and the open research challenge in broad brushstrokes so it’s easier to see the contours. Any omissions, mischaracterizations and other imperfections are solely the responsibility of the author and not OSI.
Thanks,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
From: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 1:36 PM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Common Ground paper
Hi Folks,
If you’re still interested in looking through the Common Ground paper, the latest draft is attached. Many thanks to Rob for his most recent edits. The text is 35 pages long---the rest of the 88 pages are references and annexes.
This paper isn’t ready for prime time---it’s still very much a work in progress---so please feel free to send me merciless comments (high level ones are particularly needed, like “put this entire section in the annex” or “cut the length of this section in half”). I’m still working through some of these high-level fixes as well.
Thanks,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
[1] The terms “open” and “open access” are often used interchangeably. There is no universal agreement on what either of these terms mean, as is discussed in this paper. Also, you will note that the word “open” is used in this paper as an adjective, a verb and a noun—in the immortal words of Dan Aykroyd from Saturday Night Live (the early years), it’s a dessert topping and a floor wax. When we use this word we can be speaking of a condition of information (an adjective), the act of freeing information (a verb), and/or the name of the movement that embraces both (a noun).
Wagner, Caroline
Dear Glenn,
This introduction is very balanced and thoughtful. I like it.
Caroline
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/000e01d5e6d8%24389968c0%24a9cc3a40%24%40nationalscience.org.