Article - historical example of preprint sharing
Wagner, Caroline S.
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2003995
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Glenn Hampson
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2017 8:28 PM
To: osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: university funding challenge
Thanks
to all of you who have put up with my funding requests this year. And thanks even more to those who have agreed to continue supporting OSI in 2018. So far, our funding projection is shaping up similar to last year---about 1/3 UNESCO, 1/3 foundations and 1/3
commercial publishers.
What I’d really like to see happen over the next few weeks is for 12 or more universities to each pitch in a small amount. This will help broaden our support base, help financially vest a range of participating universities in this important work, and give OSI the operating capital it needs to keep working through December and into January (when our 2018 funding commitments will start coming in). It’s a win-win-win for everyone.
Universities are at the epicenter of this conversation, are central to the changes that need to happen over the next few years (culture of communication in academia), and stand the most to gain from these changes. Can your institution please consider giving $500 or even $1000 within the next few weeks (before everyone starts heading out the door for holiday vacations)? I’m open to whatever you might want to consider calling this---a registration fee which will allow 1-2 members to attend the next conference, a sponsorship, an annual membership fee in OSI, or a donation. You decide what works for you.
Here’s the link for credit card transactions: https://www.classy.org/campaign/osi2016-25/c95200.
If you prefer to send a check instead, please make it out to the National Science Communication Institute and mail it to SCI, 2320 N 137th Street, Seattle WA 98133 USA.
American, Cambridge, Columbia, CUNY, Dartmouth, Duke, George Mason, George Washington, Georgetown, MIT, Oxford, Purdue, Rutgers, Stanford, SUNY, U College London, U Mass Amherst, U of Kentucky, UAB, UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco, UC Santa Barbara, UCLA, U of Utah, U of Washington, West Virginia U, Yale---you guys and many more have all participated in OSI2016 and OSI2017. A small boost from each of you would make a tremendous difference. Remember---SCI is a 501c3 nonprofit public charity so your institution’s support of OSI may be tax deductible.
Thanks for considering.
Sincerely,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 |
gham...@nationalscience.org |
nationalscience.org
--
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.
Glenn Hampson
Great article---thanks Caroline. This is a fascinating and well-written piece about the early history of pre-prints and the reaction to this effort from inside the scientific community. My only criticism, FWIW, is that I don’t agree with the author’s conclusion: “The fate of the IEGs should warn us of the power of commercial publishers and of vested academic interests to restrict the free circulation of knowledge.” I don’t think this story does anything of the sort. A lot has changed since even the last 1990s when this story ends. Today, publishers are at the forefront of figuring out how to improve the circulation of knowledge, many groups (COS, SPARC, ECS, Wellcome and are others) are successfully pushing awareness of this need and advocating specific solutions, yet others are piloting and pioneering new approaches to publishing, and a body of evidence now exists of how preprints can operate in the scholcomm ecosystem. If anything, the fate of IEGs should remind us how much has changed since 1967. We’re at the cusp of making real change in scholcomm, hopefully together and in the right direction, but in any case much more aggressive than has ever been possible before.
Bryan Alexander
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.
Anthony Watkinson
I agree that this is a fascinating article. What a pity that the context has to be distorted in way that no scientist would do in their own discipline.
I have actually researched this area and one day my chapter will be coming out in the Cambridge History of the Book in Britain. Maxwell did not invent the changed commercial publishing. He was following the same German commercial model that was brought to the US and the UK by immigrant publishers that was also used by Proskauer at Interscience (later bought by Wiley) and Kurt Jacoby and Walter J Johnson who founded AP. MY main published source for this is a chapter 3 by Heinz Sarkowski in A Century of Science Publishing edited by E.H.Fredriksson.
I gave presentation to an audience which included Stephen and made this very point. In any case his examples of opposition include learned society publishers – indeed they seem to be to the fore. It is my experience that what he calls “vested academic interests” are usually to the fore and commercial publishers like BioMed Central move things forward but I am not going to argue this as one might in an article because I would rather do my homework first.
Anthony
