Fw: Film Screening - Paywall: The Business of Scholarship
Fiore, Steve
Hi Everyone -- I'm hosting a screening of Paywall next week and Jason Schmitt is coming down for a discussion (see below/attached). Because many of my faculty are not aware of all that is happening in the OA movement, I'm interested in some thoughts for additional issues/arguments to bring up. For example, I have Richard Poynder's very helpful review of Paywall and I'll bring up the points he makes. But if anyone else has recommendations for additional comments/concerns, please let me know.
Thank you,
Steve
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:11 PM
To: drsf...@gmail.com
Subject: Film Screening - Paywall: The Business of Scholarship
Hi Everyone - I'm excited to let you know that, this coming Tuesday (February 19th), we're hosting a film screening with Dr. Jason Schmitt, journalist, filmmaker, and producer of the documentary “Paywall: The Business of Scholarship”. If you are actively publishing, and have not been paying attention to what is going on in academic publishing, you need to see this film. More information is provided below (and in the attached flyer). Please pass this information on to your students and colleagues. If you have any questions, let me know.
Best,
Steve Fiore
Are you currently UCF faculty, or pursuing a Ph.D., and actively publishing?
If so, you NEED to PAY ATTENTION to changes in the academic publishing ecosystem.
Paywall: The Business of Scholarship
Film screening and discussion with producer and director Dr. Jason Schmitt
6:00 to 8:00pm * February 19th, 2019
Room 233, Partnership III Building – Research Park
*** Directions
https://map.ucf.edu/locations/8126/partnership-iii-p3
***
Join us for Food and Refreshments and Lively Discussion
Paywall: The Business of Scholarship is a new documentary that addresses the need for open access to research and science while questioning the rationale behind the $25+ billion a year that flows into for-profit academic publishers (see https://paywallthemovie.com).
The world of academic publishing is at a critical juncture. First, publishing is all about credibility, and most scholars want to be published in the most reputable academic journals. But, second, accessing those journals is increasingly expensive. Although large universities can afford the costs, smaller colleges, and scholars in developing countries, are too often lacking access to the latest scientific findings and scholarly output.
Many are now advocating for open-access publishing (OA). This is a digital-centric approach that flips the traditional publishing model. Here, scholars pay a fee to make their work freely available to anyone. But this is not a simple change. The move to open-access is complicated by norms in universities and a very protective and profitable publishing industry.
Paywall is gaining international attention, reviewed in leading outlets such as Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06140-7), Science (https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/documentary-puts-lens-open-access-movement-upending-scientific-publishing), and Inside Higher Ed (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/09/10/open-access-movement-hits-silver-screen).
UCF is proud to host Dr. Jason Schmitt, journalist, filmmaker, and producer of the documentary “Paywall: The Business of Scholarship”. Following the screening, Dr. Schmitt, Clarkson University, and Dr. Jonathan Beever, and Dr. Steve Fiore, faculty with UCF’s Department of Philosophy, will facilitate a discussion on how free access to scholarship could change the way knowledge is created and shared. They will discuss questions such as: Who should own the knowledge we create? How can we ensure scholars around the globe have equal access to the latest research? How is the production of knowledge hindered when vast numbers of scientists don’t have access to scientific findings? Why is it that scholars, who do the research and writing, as well as the peer-reviewing and editing, at NO cost to the publishers, have to turn over IP copyright to journals?
Brought to you through the cooperation of:
The Cognitive Sciences Program
The Department of Philosophy Theoretical and Applied Ethics Program
The Center for Humanities and Digital Research Digital Narrative Group
The UCF Library Scholarly Communication Faculty Advisory Board
For more information, or to meet with Dr. Clark, contact Dr. Stephen M. Fiore (sfi...@ist.ucf.edu)
Glenn Hampson
I do! As Jason will tell you, OSI was part of Jason’s filmmaking effort. A lot of his interviews were done on-site at George Washington University during OSI2017. Our hope, and Jason’s as well, was that he would eventually be able to arrive at a balanced piece that gave viewers a broad perspective on this issue, including publisher points of view. Through no fault of his own, his full suite of interviews didn’t materialize---maybe these will be in Paywall 2: Revenge of the Publishers.
So, while this film is a good introduction to this topic for the uninitiated, it’s also not what Jason originally set out to create or what OSI (through its support and connections) originally set out to facilitate. I think it’s critical for new audiences to understand that there is more to this issue than meets the eye---but knowing this issue exists is an important first step to getting them involved in the conversation.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
--
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.
T Scott Plutchak
On Feb 13, 2019, at 2:53 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
I do! As Jason will tell you, OSI was part of Jason’s filmmaking effort. A lot of his interviews were done on-site at George Washington University during OSI2017. Our hope, and Jason’s as well, was that he would eventually be able to arrive at a balanced piece that gave viewers a broad perspective on this issue, including publisher points of view. Through no fault of his own, his full suite of interviews didn’t materialize---maybe these will be in Paywall 2: Revenge of the Publishers.So, while this film is a good introduction to this topic for the uninitiated, it’s also not what Jason originally set out to create or what OSI (through its support and connections) originally set out to facilitate. I think it’s critical for new audiences to understand that there is more to this issue than meets the eye---but knowing this issue exists is an important first step to getting them involved in the conversation.Best,GlennGlenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<image004.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.
Jason Schmitt
Bryan Alexander
Abel L. Packer
Glenn Hampson
Wait what? The earth is NOT flat? I was just reading this article about why we don’t fall off the edge… https://www.livescience.com/62454-flat-earthers-explain-pac-man-effect.html
From: Abel L. Packer <abel....@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 5:50 PM
To: Jason Schmitt <jsch...@clarkson.edu>
Cc: T Scott Plutchak <splu...@gmail.com>; Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>; Fiore, Steve <sfi...@ist.ucf.edu>; osi2016-25-googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Film Screening - Paywall: The Business of Scholarship
Considering the earth is not flat, was there any special reason why the film ignored SciELO? Abel
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:36 PM Jason Schmitt <jsch...@clarkson.edu> wrote:
Hi Scott, Glenn and all:
Yes, I am satisfied with the film I created--but, yes, I had hoped for more balance with Elsevier, specifically, but was not able to obtain that footage (for reasons I completely understand). I've been pleased with the roll out of the film, the 140,000 views it has obtained online to date on Vimeo, YouTube, Internet Archive and Amazon Prime as well as the 340 public screenings at universities and institutions worldwide. I'd like to think this film gets at and activates a different audience than many of our cumulative efforts have been able to capture. From day one I've been clear in saying my goal was a film for the uninitiated on why Open Access is important in scholarly publishing and not a film for those who think about OA on a regular basis. In the end, I hope this broader awareness makes what OSI and others do that much more wide reaching.
Thank you the support,
Jason
Jason Schmitt, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Chair
Department of Communication, Media & Design
Clarkson University
a: Box 5760, 8 Clarkson Avenue, Potsdam, New York 13699
p: 315-268-2314
Fiore, Steve
Thanks Glenn, but you never provided an answer. You just said you do have one (or more). I'm familiar with the history of the project. I'm now seeking some tangible issues that I can bring up during the discussion; that is, I'd like to provide some kind of constructive criticisms rather than vague comments.
For example, Richard Poynder's review in Nature laid out a number of insights to illuminate the publisher perspective. And the article from Inside Higher Ed also provided some important points (e.g., they quote John Warren at GW who described some of what was not discussed in the film). So if anyone has seen any other reviews or online discussions of the film, please share.
Thanks,
Steve
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 3:53 PM
To: Fiore, Steve; osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Film Screening - Paywall: The Business of Scholarship
Richard Poynder
Not sure if you list this one Steve: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(18)32353-5.pdf
Glenn Hampson
Got it. Here are some specific observations, then, for what it’s worth. I haven’t read any other reviews---my comments here aren’t meant to be hurtful, but if you’re asking for constructive criticisms about this film, which tries to deal honestly with this very complicated subject we’ve all been working on for so long, then I’m afraid I can’t be too charitable:
- The first 14 minutes of the film focuses on Elsevier’s profit margin. This is often rolled out to goad audiences into being appalled about publishers----profit margins equals bad, nonprofits equals good---without any critical analysis (e.g., Elsevier is a small part of RELX, so a lot of its balance sheet is covered elsewhere, are they accusing publishers of price gouging and if so let’s see the evidence, etc.). What makes this angle painful to me is that it is interspersed with scenes of school closings and dire illness---due to Elsevier’s profit margin the imagery would suggest. Okay, I get it---the audience needs to be hooked in caring about this issue. But why not mention the cost of tuition and books while you’re at it? Or underfunding by states? Or declining library funding? Or declining student aid, rising family debt or record numbers of kids trying to cram into colleges? It cost me $30,000/year to attend grad school at AU, a debt that I’m still paying on. This wasn’t because of Elsevier’s journal prices.
- Rick Anderson’s comment about open being a religion is totally misinterpreted---he is immediately shouted down by John Wilbanks, who says that open does have a kind of power to reveal. What Rick was trying to get at is that open can be an orthodoxy used to bludgeon heretics into silence. If you don’t agree that “no embargo CC-BY gold” is the best publishing solution in the universe, then you must be banished to the “pro-Elsevier” kingdom. And this leads to the broader point which is totally missed in this film: What on earth do people mean by open anyway? Ask your audience Steve: What do you need? To read an article for free? Okay. Would they consider that kind of access to be open? About 50% of recently published material falls into this category. Is this open enough though? For most of the people in this film, probably yes. Ask any of these people if they also need the article to be free to reuse and immediate. For most the answer would probably be no---there weren’t any medical researchers here clamoring to have access to the latest datasets. I’m not saying this isn’t important though---I’m trying to make Rick’s ignored point, which is that a lot of this argument today is about the orthodoxy----about different camps arguing over what we mean by “open.”
- The rest of this film treads on anecdotes and hyperbole and not enough facts. Yes Elsevier lobbies but so what? Everyone major company and interest group lobbies. Yes impact factors are misused but they’re misused throughout scholarly publishing by open journals and subscription journals alike. Yes there is an access gap, but what are the dimensions of this? And is “open” writ-large the only solution (how does this compare with the subscription subsidies approach?; how does the risk of creating APC “play-walls” figure into our thinking?; what areas need the most urgent access and what options are we exploring to provide that access today?). We need more information and more work to find real answers, not continue to point fingers at villains and simplistically suggest that there’s only one problem here---that evil, lobbying, profit-making, download-charging Elsevier, propped up by heartless defenders of the status quo (played by Rick and Kim), who are vastly outnumbered by an army of caring visionaries. It’s this kind of narrative that has turned this community against itself for so many years when in fact we’re all on the same side. So, yes, while this film helps open eyes to an important problem, it also might, unfortunately, perpetuate stereotypes that OSI is trying to break down.
- And finally, OSI isn’t thanked in the credits---we went out of our way to set a dozen-plus interviews (providing meeting space, coordinating interviews, recruiting interviewees, etc.). This is the real reason my review is so cranky.
Hope this helps,
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 Fiore, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 10:30 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>; osi20...@googlegroups.com
David Wojick
Got it. Here are some specific observations, then, for what it’s worth. I haven’t read any other reviews---my comments here aren’t meant to be hurtful, but if you’re asking for constructive criticisms about this film, which tries to deal honestly with this very complicated subject we’ve all been working on for so long, then I’m afraid I can’t be too charitable:
- The first 14 minutes of the film focuses on Elsevier’s profit margin. This is often rolled out to goad audiences into being appalled about publishers----profit margins equals bad, nonprofits equals good---without any critical analysis (e.g., Elsevier is a small part of RELX, so a lot of its balance sheet is covered elsewhere, are they accusing publishers of price gouging and if so let’s see the evidence, etc.). What makes this angle painful to me is that it is interspersed with scenes of school closings and dire illness---due to Elsevier’s profit margin the imagery would suggest. Okay, I get it---the audience needs to be hooked in caring about this issue. But why not mention the cost of tuition and books while you’re at it? Or underfunding by states? Or declining library funding? Or declining student aid, rising family debt or record numbers of kids trying to cram into colleges? It cost me $30,000/year to attend grad school at AU, a debt that I’m still paying on. This wasn’t because of Elsevier’s journal prices.
- Rick Anderson’s comment about open being a religion is totally misinterpreted---he is immediately shouted down by John Wilbanks, who says that open does have a kind of power to reveal. What Rick was trying to get at is that open can be an orthodoxy used to bludgeon heretics into silence. If you don’t agree that “no embargo CC-BY gold” is the best publishing solution in the universe, then you must be banished to the “pro-Elsevier” kingdom. And this leads to the broader point which is totally missed in this film: What on earth do people mean by open anyway? Ask your audience Steve: What do you need? To read an article for free? Okay. Would they consider that kind of access to be open? About 50% of recently published material falls into this category. Is this open enough though? For most of the people in this film, probably yes. Ask any of these people if they also need the article to be free to reuse and immediate. For most the answer would probably be no---there weren’t any medical researchers here clamoring to have access to the latest datasets. I’m not saying this isn’t important though---I’m trying to make Rick’s ignored point, which is that a lot of this argument today is about the orthodoxy----about different camps arguing over what we mean by “open.”
- The rest of this film treads on anecdotes and hyperbole and not enough facts. Yes Elsevier lobbies but so what? Everyone major company and interest group lobbies. Yes impact factors are misused but they’re misused throughout scholarly publishing by open journals and subscription journals alike. Yes there is an access gap, but what are the dimensions of this? And is “open” writ-large the only solution (how does this compare with the subscription subsidies approach?; how does the risk of creating APC “play-walls” figure into our thinking?; what areas need the most urgent access and what options are we exploring to provide that access today?). We need more information and more work to find real answers, not continue to point fingers at villains and simplistically suggest that there’s only one problem here---that evil, lobbying, profit-making, download-charging Elsevier, propped up by heartless defenders of the status quo (played by Rick and Kim), who are vastly outnumbered by an army of caring visionaries. It’s this kind of narrative that has turned this community against itself for so many years when in fact we’re all on the same side. So, yes, while this film helps open eyes to an important problem, it also might, unfortunately, perpetuate stereotypes that OSI is trying to break down.
- And finally, OSI isn’t thanked in the credits---we went out of our way to set a dozen-plus interviews (providing meeting space, coordinating interviews, recruiting interviewees, etc.). This is the real reason my review is so cranky.
Hope this helps,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<image008.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.
--
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.
Anthony Watkinson
Om 2018 I and two other members of this list have spent a lot of our time doing a new edition of the STM Report which is widely used by librarians as a reference. We tried very hard to stick to facts. Obviously what we included was selected on the basis of publisher preoccupations. – to large extent. I put in a few sentences on OSI because I think the Open Science movement is important for example. Only two of us have ever been publishers and none of us are currently publishers.
So far to my knowledge only one person has written in to complain about a factual error. This has been corrected. Is it not about time for Open Access to be presented carefully as generally accepted as to be strived for but with the problems of implementation carefully explained? It does not have to be boring. I was bowled over by ROMA – the film. The director had an agenda that he has talked about he worked hard to recreate his childhood experiences without distortion. He managed to produce a superb film
Anthony
David Wojick
Also, given the tree structure of these issues, there is in an important sense no such thing as a complete and balanced presentation. Each line of argument has to stop somewhere and this means the next rejoinders are not included. Defining balance on an issue tree is an interesting challenge in its own right.
David
At 10:34 AM 2/15/2019, Anthony Watkinson wrote:
Om 2018 I and two other members of this list have spent a lot of our time doing a new edition of the STM Report which is widely used by librarians as a reference. We tried very hard to stick to facts. Obviously what we included was selected on the basis of publisher preoccupations. – to  large extent. I put in a few sentences on OSI because I think the Open Science movement is important for example. Only two of us have ever been publishers and none of us are currently publishers.
So far to my knowledge only one person has written in to complain about a factual error. This has been corrected. Is it not about time for Open Access to be presented carefully as generally accepted as to be strived for but with the problems of implementation carefully explained? It does not have to be boring. I was bowled over by ROMA – the film. The director had an agenda that he has talked about he worked hard to recreate his childhood experiences without distortion. He managed to produce a superb film
Anthony
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [ mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: 15 February 2019 15:17
To: Glenn Hampson
Cc: Fiore, Steve; osi2016-25-googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Film Screening - Paywall: The Business of Scholarship
Sounds like a fairly normal advocacy form. As such it may well be a very good movie. OA is after all a social and political (that is, policy) movement. Advocacy is warranted in that regard. It is how change gets made.
David
On Feb 14, 2019, at 5:39 PM, Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- Got it. Here are some specific observations, then, for what it’s worth. I haven’t read any other reviews---my comments here aren’t meant to be hurtful, but if you’re asking for constructive criticisms about this film, which tries to deal honestly with this very complicated subject we’ve all been working on for so long, then I’m afraid I can’t be too charitable:
- The first 14 minutes of the film focuses on Elsevier’s profit margin. This is often rolled out to goad audiences into being appalled about publishers----profit margins equals bad, nonprofits equals good---without any critical analysis (e.g., Elsevier is a small part of RELX, so a lot of its balance sheet is covered elsewhere, are they accusing publishers of price gouging and if so let’s see the evidence, etc.). What makes this angle painful to me is that it is interspersed with scenes of school closings and dire illness---due to Elsevier’s profit margin the imagery would suggest. Okay, I get it---the audience needs to be hooked in caring about this issue. But why not mention the cost of tuition and books while you’re at it? Or underfunding by states? Or declining library funding? Or declining student aid, rising family debt or record numbers of kids trying to cram into colleges? It cost me $30,000/year to attend grad school at AU, a debt that I’m still paying on. This wasn’t because of Elsevier’s journal prices.
- Rick Anderson’s comment about open being a religion is totally misinterpreted---he is immediately shouted down by John Wilbanks, who says that open does have a kind of power to reveal. What Rick was trying to get at is that open can be an orthodoxy used to bludgeon heretics into silence. If you don’t agree that “no embargo CC-BY gold†is the best publishing solution in the universe, then you must be banished to the “pro-Elsevier†kingdom. And this leads to the broader point which is totally missed in this film: What on earth do people mean by open anyway? Ask your audience Steve: What do you need? To read an article for free? Okay. Would they consider that kind of access to be open? About 50% of recently published material falls into this category. Is this open enough though? For most of the people in this film, probably yes. Ask any of these people if they also need the article to be free to reuse and immediate. For most the answer would probably be no---there weren’t any medical researchers here clamoring to have access to the latest datasets. I’m not saying this isn’t important though---I’m trying to make Rick’s ignored point, which is that a lot of this argument today is about the orthodoxy----about different camps arguing over what we mean by “open.â€
- The rest of this film treads on anecdotes and hyperbole and not enough facts. Yes Elsevier lobbies but so what? Everyone major company and interest group lobbies. Yes impact factors are misused but they’re misused throughout scholarly publishing by open journals and subscription journals alike. Yes there is an access gap, but what are the dimensions of this? And is “open†writ-large the only solution (how does this compare with the subscription subsidies approach?; how does the risk of creating APC “play-walls†figure into our thinking?; what areas need the most urgent access and what options are we exploring to provide that access today?). We need more information and more work to find real answers, not continue to point fingers at villains and simplistically suggest that there’s only one problem here---that evil, lobbying, profit-making, download-charging Elsevier, propped up by heartless defenders of the status quo (played by Rick and Kim), who are vastly outnumbered by an army of caring visionaries. It’s this kind of narrative that has turned this community against itself for so many years when in fact we’re all on the same side. So, yes, while this film helps open eyes to an important problem, it also might, unfortunately, perpetuate stereotypes that OSI is trying to break down.
- And finally, OSI isn’t thanked in the credits---we went out of our way to set a dozen-plus interviews (providing meeting space, coordinating interviews, recruiting interviewees, etc.). This is the real reason my review is so cranky.
- Hope this helps,
- Glenn
- Glenn Hampson
- Executive Director
- Science Communication Institute (SCI)
- Program Director
- Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
- <image006.jpg>
- From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Fiore, Steve
- Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 10:30 PM
- To: Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org>; osi20...@googlegroups.com
- Subject: Re: Film Screening - Paywall: The Business of Scholarship
- Thanks Glenn, but you never provided an answer. You just said you do have one (or more). I'm familiar with the history of the project. I'm now seeking some tangible issues that I can bring up during the discussion; that is, I'd like to provide some kind of constructive criticisms rather than vague comments.
- For example, Richard Poynder's review in Nature laid out a number of insights to illuminate the publisher perspective. And the article from Inside Higher Ed also provided some important points (e.g., they quote John Warren at GW who described some of what was not discussed in the film). So if anyone has seen any other reviews or online discussions of the film, please share.
- Thanks,
- Steve
- From: Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org>
- Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 3:53 PM
- To: Fiore, Steve; osi20...@googlegroups.com
- Subject: RE: Film Screening - Paywall: The Business of Scholarship
- I do! As Jason will tell you, OSI was part of Jason’s filmmaking effort. A lot of his interviews were done on-site at George Washington University during OSI2017. Our hope, and Jason’s as well, was that he would eventually be able to arrive at a balanced piece that gave viewers a broad perspective on this issue, including publisher points of view. Through no fault of his own, his full suite of interviews didn’t materialize---maybe these will be in Paywall 2: Revenge of the Publishers.
- So, while this film is a good introduction to this topic for the uninitiated, it’s also not what Jason originally set out to create or what OSI (through its support and connections) originally set out to facilitate. I think it’s critical for new audiences to understand that there is more to this issue than meets the eye---but knowing this issue exists is an important first step to getting them involved in the conversation.
- 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 Fiore, Steve
- Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:34 PM
- Subject: Fw: Film Screening - Paywall: The Business of Scholarship
- Hi Everyone -- I'm hosting a screening of Paywall next week and Jason Schmitt is coming down for a discussion (see below/attached). Because many of my faculty are not aware of all that is happening in the OA movement, I'm interested in some thoughts for additional issues/arguments to bring up. For example, I have Richard Poynder's very helpful review of Paywall and I'll bring up the points he makes. But if anyone else has recommendations for additional comments/concerns, please let me know.
- Thank you,
- Steve
- From: Fiore, Steve
- Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2019 12:11 PM
- Subject: Film Screening - Paywall: The Business of Scholarship
- Hi Everyone - I'm excited to let you know that, this coming Tuesday (February 19th), we're hosting a film screening with Dr. Jason Schmitt, journalist, filmmaker, and producer of the documentary “Paywall: The Business of Scholarship†. If you are actively publishing, and have not been paying attention to what is going on in academic publishing, you need to see this film. More information is provided below (and in the attached flyer). Please pass this information on to your students and colleagues. If you have any questions, let me know.
- Best,
- Steve Fiore
- Are you currently UCF faculty, or pursuing a Ph.D., and actively publishing?
- If so, you NEED to PAY ATTENTION to changes in the academic publishing ecosystem.
- Paywall: The Business of Scholarship
- Film screening and discussion with producer and director Dr. Jason Schmitt
- 6:00 to 8:00pm * February 19th, 2019
- Room 233, Partnership III Building – Research Park
- *** Directions https://map.ucf.edu/locations/8126/partnership-iii-p3 ***
- Join us for Food and Refreshments and Lively Discussion
- Paywall: The Business of Scholarship is a new documentary that addresses the need for open access to research and science while questioning the rationale behind the $25+ billion a year that flows into for-profit academic publishers (see https://paywallthemovie.com ).
- The world of academic publishing is at a critical juncture. First, publishing is all about credibility, and most scholars want to be published in the most reputable academic journals. But, second, accessing those journals is increasingly expensive. Although large universities can afford the costs, smaller colleges, and scholars in developing countries, are too often lacking access to the latest scientific findings and scholarly output.
- Many are now advocating for open-access publishing (OA). This is a digital-centric approach that flips the traditional publishing model. Here, scholars pay a fee to make their work freely available to anyone. But this is not a simple change. The move to open-access is complicated by norms in universities and a very protective and profitable publishing industry.
- Paywall is gaining international attention, reviewed in leading outlets such as Nature ( https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06140-7), Science ( https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/documentary-puts-lens-open-access-movement-upending-scientific-publishing ), and Inside Higher Ed ( https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/09/10/open-access-movement-hits-silver-screen ).
- UCF is proud to host Dr. Jason Schmitt, journalist, filmmaker, and producer of the documentary “Paywall: The Business of Scholarship†. Following the screening, Dr. Schmitt, Clarkson University, and Dr. Jonathan Beever, and Dr. Steve Fiore, faculty with UCF’s Department of Philosophy, will facilitate a discussion on how free access to scholarship could change the way knowledge is created and shared. They will discuss questions such as: Who should own the knowledge we create? How can we ensure scholars around the globe have equal access to the latest research? How is the production of knowledge hindered when vast numbers of scientists don’t have access to scientific findings? Why is it that scholars, who do the research and writing, as well as the peer-reviewing and editing, at NO cost to the publishers, have to turn over IP copyright to journals?
Anthony Watkinson
David Wojick
Anthony Watkinson
I do not think I agree with you David BUT the way you have set this out is very helpful.