Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Martin G. Hicks
Here is a very interesting, controversial, and thought provoking article, pertinent to the current discussion:
“Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?” By Stephen Buranyi in The Guardian, Tuesday 27 June 2017
Some passages from the article:
"if you control access to the scientific literature, it is, to all intents and purposes, like controlling science"
“there is a moral imperative to re-consider how scientific data are judged and disseminated”
A 2005 Deutsche Bank report referred to it as a “bizarre” “triple-pay” system, in which “the state funds most research, pays the salaries of most of those checking the quality of research, and then buys most of the published product”.
----------------------------------------
Martin G. Hicks, Ph.D.
Beilstein-Institut
Trakehner Str. 7-9
60487 Frankfurt am Main
Germany
Tel.: +49 69 7167 3220
Fax.: +49 69 7167 3219
Twitter: @BeilsteinInst
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/beilstein-institut
Orcid: 0000-0002-2259-0764
----------------------------------------
David Wojick
David
Inside Public Access
--
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.
Fiore, Steve
Here is that quote in the full context. I think the text below captures what is the fundamental, and frustrating, problem. As an aside, the quote from RELX Group at the end, about charging a fair price, is particularly amusing given that their profit margin is 36%. Frankly, until those of us who write/review the scholarly articles collectively agree to stand up to the publishers, and boycott, not just submitting to them, but also reviewing/editing for them, no real change will happen.
"In 2010, Elsevier’s scientific publishing arm reported profits of £724m on just over £2bn in revenue. It was a 36% margin – higher than Apple, Google, or Amazon posted that year. But Elsevier’s business model seemed a truly puzzling thing. In order to make money, a traditional publisher – say, a magazine – first has to cover a multitude of costs: it pays writers for the articles; it employs editors to commission, shape and check the articles; and it pays to distribute the finished product to subscribers and retailers. All of this is expensive, and successful magazines typically make profits of around 12-15%. The way to make money from a scientific article looks very similar, except that scientific publishers manage to duck most of the actual costs. Scientists create work under their own direction – funded largely by governments – and give it to publishers for free; the publisher pays scientific editors who judge whether the work is worth publishing and check its grammar, but the bulk of the editorial burden – checking the scientific validity and evaluating the experiments, a process known as peer review – is done by working scientists on a volunteer basis. The publishers then sell the product back to government-funded institutional and university libraries, to be read by scientists – who, in a collective sense, created the product in the first place. It is as if the New Yorker or the Economist demanded that journalists write and edit each other’s work for free, and asked the government to foot the bill. Outside observers tend to fall into a sort of stunned disbelief when describing this setup. A 2004 parliamentary science and technology committee report on the industry drily observed that “in a traditional market suppliers are paid for the goods they provide”. A 2005 Deutsche Bank report referred to it as a “bizarre” “triple-pay” system, in which “the state funds most research, pays the salaries of most of those checking the quality of research, and then buys most of the published product”. Scientists are well aware that they seem to be getting a bad deal. The publishing business is “perverse and needless”, the Berkeley biologist Michael Eisen wrote in a 2003 article for the Guardian, declaring that it “should be a public scandal”. Adrian Sutton, a physicist at Imperial College, told me that scientists “are all slaves to publishers. What other industry receives its raw materials from its customers, gets those same customers to carry out the quality control of those materials, and then sells the same materials back to the customers at a vastly inflated price?” (A representative of RELX Group, the official name of Elsevier since 2015, told me that it and other publishers “serve the research community by doing things that they need that they either cannot, or do not do on their own, and charge a fair price for that service”.)"
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 6:24 PM
To: osi2016-25-googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
David
Inside Public Access
At 06:05 AM 6/27/2017, you wrote:
Here is a very interesting, controversial, and thought provoking article, pertinent to the current discussion:
“Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?” By Stephen Buranyi in The Guardian, Tuesday 27 June 2017
Some passages from the article:
"if you control access to the scientific literature, it is, to all intents and purposes, like controlling science"
“there is a moral imperative to re-consider how scientific data are judged and disseminated”
A 2005 Deutsche Bank report referred to it as a “bizarre” “triple-pay” system, in which “the state funds most research, pays the salaries of most of those checking the quality of research, and then buys most of the published product”.
----------------------------------------
Martin G. Hicks, Ph.D.
Beilstein-Institut
Trakehner Str. 7-9
60487 Frankfurt am Main
Germany
Tel.: +49 69 7167 3220
Fax.: +49 69 7167 3219
www.beilstein-institut.de
Twitter: @BeilsteinInst
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/beilstein-institut
Orcid: 0000-0002-2259-0764
----------------------------------------
--
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.
Richard Poynder
The Deutsche Bank report has been much quoted over the years. Has anyone actually read it, or have a copy? I would certainly be interested in reading it.
Richard Poynder
Martin G. Hicks
David, I have not read the report either, and if it were possible to get a copy I would be most interested.
But just considering the quoted statement, bearing in mind the profit margins and the ownership of the content, since scientific knowledge is a public good, using the term bizarre does not seem to be out of place.
Martin Hicks
Anthony Watkinson
I also read the Buranyi article. I subscribe to the Guardian and actually read it in print. There was some interesting and mostly accurate stuff about the history of Pergamon though it exaggerated the role of Maxwell and some straight errors – for example suggesting that Elsevier are big on buying up learned societies. . I have actually researched the changes in scholarly publishing in the twentieth century in the UK. My chapter is due out and has been due out for some years in Volume VII of the History of the Book in Britain (CUP) so I say that with some specialised knowledge. That is historical research
But this is an advocacy piece.
Yes it is always helpful for you Steve (or for any of us for that matter) to appeal to something in a newspaper which backs up one’s views but look to see who Buranyi quotes? Why do they all the same thing? Why do they ask the same activists? Why not ask other scholars why they do not boycott Elsevier? It is not difficult to refuse to serve on an editorial board or referee especially as we all know it does not get much credit yet.
I would suggest that if we are looking at the open agenda as a whole Elsevier do have some transparent policies and some positive policies probably better than other non-commercial publishers which make large surpluses. I am not going to analyse them now but I do recall that the first retraction policies came from Elsevier. Note that I have never worked for Elsevier or Pergamon
A coterie of journalists on the Guardian have been pushing a line for decades. It is their right to do so as long as they do not pretend to give a balanced view.
Anthony
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Fiore, Steve
Sent: 27 June 2017 23:49
Alexander Garcia Castro
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.
--
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 take your point Alexander.
But I do not know what you mean by “academic” in the context you use it. It you mean “irrelevant” which I would contest you are casting a slur on all scholars. This may be a populist position but not a position that OSI should espouse.
I am not at all sure that refusal not to review and not to agree to be an editor/editorial board. I have done both but I am not a typical researcher. What I can say is that some of the early career researchers I have just finished interviewing have just done that. Why? Because they do not think they get credit and because they want to get on with their research. I cannot quantify this as yet but it does happen.
Some of these ECRs would agree that the journal article is not the only or the most important output. I think there is a growing number. However almost all think that journal articles are important as researchers almost always do (see CIBER work in 2013). We would not be on this list if we did not agree that a whole range of outputs should be important.
How do we move forward? As I have suggested before the best way is to work for a much wider range of credits covering all aspects of the research cycle plus other aspects of the academic life like teaching and finding ways of encouraging all researchers especially tenure committees etc to buy in to this. I think there is movement. If Elsevier help bits of the agenda that is good news.
Anthony
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alexander Garcia Castro
Sent: 28 June 2017 09:57
To: Anthony Watkinson
Cc: Fiore, Steve; osi2016-25-googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
This is not a matter of advocacy or historical truth. Actually, this is not an academic historical issue -congratulations on your book and book chapter and also on being able to ping point inaccuracies in the article but the issue remains the issue.
Why not ask other scholars why they do not boycott Elsevier?
There have been efforts trying to boycott Elsevier, with limited success. In part because academics have a very limited understanding of what is at stake and also because publishers in general have a huge power over the whole system.
It is not difficult to refuse to serve on an editorial board or referee especially as we all know it does not get much credit yet.
You are wrong here. when u are asked to serve on an editorial board u are appealing on vanity, and there is a lot of that in academia. You are also making it possible for whoever is being asked for to gain brownie points with his/her peers. this person automatically becomes some one who has "power" over the process upon which careers are built. It is not a matter of perception of the publishing industry as a whole or that of Elsevier in particular; it is a simple fact, a huge part, if not all, of academic careers are built upon publications, control the publications and then u control the possibilities people have for moving forward their careers. it is not an imaginary construct that editorial boards have influence; make sure that u influence the editorial board and u are therefore influencing the community.
I would suggest that if we are looking at the open agenda as a whole Elsevier do have some transparent policies
They do, of course. it is simple "make money at all costs". there is another part of their policy that so far has not been discussed with the seriousness it deserves. Elsevier has been on a shopping spree; not surprisingly they have acquired key pieces of digital scholarly and open data. in essence, at the end of the day they will also own a big part of the data infrastructure we all need to work in an open manner. As a matter of fact, such monopolistic activities have in the past been penalised by governments. Publishers get away with it because such a business model is so bizarre that people find it hard to understand. also because scholars do not agree on a bottom line and instead they keep thinking of writing papers.... simply because they just have to if they want to move forward with their careers...
I am not going to analyse them now but I do recall that the first retraction policies came from Elsevier.
retracting, is a part of the research work. the fact that authors dont always have a clear path to retracting speaks badly of us researchers, not so much of the publishers. at the end, they are giving us what we ask for...
I find it hard to understand how is it that we, researchers, remain indifferent to a problem that affects us all. The root of the problem is the absurd value that we have put in the one single commodity that is produced at the very end of the research life cycle. a commodity that in this day and age has little or not real value because it is not the object we can all use to present our results. it is the worst channel of dissemination for most scientific endeavours. this is an industry that we have built, that benefits very few and that we continue to feed. taking about innovations in scholarly communication is like talking eggs laid by airplanes.
I trust the whole situation will change. but this will happen in 3 or 4 generations. most, if not all of those calling the shots hardly understand internet and the implications it has. Moreover, many of those calling the shots have benefited, or expect to benefit, in one way or another from the status quo. This is a matter of doing the right thing for once and for all.
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Anthony Watkinson <anthony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
I also read the Buranyi article. I subscribe to the Guardian and actually read it in print. There was some interesting and mostly accurate stuff about the history of Pergamon though it exaggerated the role of Maxwell and some straight errors – for example suggesting that Elsevier are big on buying up learned societies. . I have actually researched the changes in scholarly publishing in the twentieth century in the UK. My chapter is due out and has been due out for some years in Volume VII of the History of the Book in Britain (CUP) so I say that with some specialised knowledge. That is historical research
But this is an advocacy piece.
Yes it is always helpful for you Steve (or for any of us for that matter) to appeal to something in a newspaper which backs up one’s views but look to see who Buranyi quotes? Why do they all the same thing? Why do they ask the same activists? Why not ask other scholars why they do not boycott Elsevier? It is not difficult to refuse to serve on an editorial board or referee especially as we all know it does not get much credit yet.
I would suggest that if we are looking at the open agenda as a whole Elsevier do have some transparent policies and some positive policies probably better than other non-commercial publishers which make large surpluses. I am not going to analyse them now but I do recall that the first retraction policies came from Elsevier. Note that I have never worked for Elsevier or Pergamon
A coterie of journalists on the Guardian have been pushing a line for decades. It is their right to do so as long as they do not pretend to give a balanced view.
Anthony
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.
--
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.
--
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.
Alexander Garcia Castro
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.
--
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
Thanks Alexander. We all have different experiences. At least two of the people I have been interviewing have given up an editorial board position because they do not have time and I know of many others who refused from the days when I was a publisher. I cannot quantify. However I would like to suggest that one should not generalise purely from one’s own experience.
Yes I agree with you that as it stands the journal article may well need to be replaced. It may be morphing. F1000Research is an interesting lead. I suspect however that something like the article which summarises a piece of research will need to exist.
I am not saying that the “common good” is part of the publishers way of thinking but what most researchers want certainly is and now what funders and governments want is also very significant for them. In some areas like the handling of data some publishers have done a lot – see Pangaea and Dryad and also the handling of supplemental materials. In others I agree there has been less innovation than one might have hoped.
Anthony
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alexander Garcia Castro
Sent: 28 June 2017 10:56
To: Anthony Watkinson
Cc: Fiore, Steve; osi2016-25-googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
academic=researchers, scholars. in my use of "academic" there is no intention of populism or irrelevancy. I could not do it because I am a researcher.
I have know not yet know anyone rejecting to be part of an editorial board -old and young, early stage and consolidated researchers alike. it is simply a badge of honor no matter how irrelevant such post may be -and here, I am really using irrelevant with all its meaning.
the paper is not longer the atomic unit of scholarly communication but it hasn't been replaced by anything. in order for it to be replaced there must be real value attached to the replacement or replacements. participating in a mailing list, no matter how important it is, does not have any value in advancing an academic career. innovations in scholarly communication fall far behind from those in other areas simply because there is no competition in this market. publishers dont need to innovate because the market is static.
why do u expect to get a solution from those who helped and have benefitted from the problem? what is the incentive? certainly the common good is not part of their agenda, and should not be because first and foremost they have a fiduciary responsibility. this falls on us, researchers, to quite simply reboot the system. but... again, I am optimistic, this will happen in 3 or 4 generations.
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Anthony Watkinson <anthony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
I take your point Alexander.
But I do not know what you mean by “academic” in the context you use it. It you mean “irrelevant” which I would contest you are casting a slur on all scholars. This may be a populist position but not a position that OSI should espouse.
I am not at all sure that refusal not to review and not to agree to be an editor/editorial board. I have done both but I am not a typical researcher. What I can say is that some of the early career researchers I have just finished interviewing have just done that. Why? Because they do not think they get credit and because they want to get on with their research. I cannot quantify this as yet but it does happen.
Some of these ECRs would agree that the journal article is not the only or the most important output. I think there is a growing number. However almost all think that journal articles are important as researchers almost always do (see CIBER work in 2013). We would not be on this list if we did not agree that a whole range of outputs should be important.
How do we move forward? As I have suggested before the best way is to work for a much wider range of credits covering all aspects of the research cycle plus other aspects of the academic life like teaching and finding ways of encouraging all researchers especially tenure committees etc to buy in to this. I think there is movement. If Elsevier help bits of the agenda that is good news.
Anthony
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Alexander Garcia Castro
Sent: 28 June 2017 09:57
To: Anthony Watkinson
Cc: Fiore, Steve; osi2016-25-googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
This is not a matter of advocacy or historical truth. Actually, this is not an academic historical issue -congratulations on your book and book chapter and also on being able to ping point inaccuracies in the article but the issue remains the issue.
Why not ask other scholars why they do not boycott Elsevier?
There have been efforts trying to boycott Elsevier, with limited success. In part because academics have a very limited understanding of what is at stake and also because publishers in general have a huge power over the whole system.
It is not difficult to refuse to serve on an editorial board or referee especially as we all know it does not get much credit yet.
You are wrong here. when u are asked to serve on an editorial board u are appealing on vanity, and there is a lot of that in academia. You are also making it possible for whoever is being asked for to gain brownie points with his/her peers. this person automatically becomes some one who has "power" over the process upon which careers are built. It is not a matter of perception of the publishing industry as a whole or that of Elsevier in particular; it is a simple fact, a huge part, if not all, of academic careers are built upon publications, control the publications and then u control the possibilities people have for moving forward their careers. it is not an imaginary construct that editorial boards have influence; make sure that u influence the editorial board and u are therefore influencing the community.
I would suggest that if we are looking at the open agenda as a whole Elsevier do have some transparent policies
They do, of course. it is simple "make money at all costs". there is another part of their policy that so far has not been discussed with the seriousness it deserves. Elsevier has been on a shopping spree; not surprisingly they have acquired key pieces of digital scholarly and open data. in essence, at the end of the day they will also own a big part of the data infrastructure we all need to work in an open manner. As a matter of fact, such monopolistic activities have in the past been penalised by governments. Publishers get away with it because such a business model is so bizarre that people find it hard to understand. also because scholars do not agree on a bottom line and instead they keep thinking of writing papers.... simply because they just have to if they want to move forward with their careers...
I am not going to analyse them now but I do recall that the first retraction policies came from Elsevier.
retracting, is a part of the research work. the fact that authors dont always have a clear path to retracting speaks badly of us researchers, not so much of the publishers. at the end, they are giving us what we ask for...
I find it hard to understand how is it that we, researchers, remain indifferent to a problem that affects us all. The root of the problem is the absurd value that we have put in the one single commodity that is produced at the very end of the research life cycle. a commodity that in this day and age has little or not real value because it is not the object we can all use to present our results. it is the worst channel of dissemination for most scientific endeavours. this is an industry that we have built, that benefits very few and that we continue to feed. taking about innovations in scholarly communication is like talking eggs laid by airplanes.
I trust the whole situation will change. but this will happen in 3 or 4 generations. most, if not all of those calling the shots hardly understand internet and the implications it has. Moreover, many of those calling the shots have benefited, or expect to benefit, in one way or another from the status quo. This is a matter of doing the right thing for once and for all.
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Anthony Watkinson <anthony....@btinternet.com> wrote:
I also read the Buranyi article. I subscribe to the Guardian and actually read it in print. There was some interesting and mostly accurate stuff about the history of Pergamon though it exaggerated the role of Maxwell and some straight errors – for example suggesting that Elsevier are big on buying up learned societies. . I have actually researched the changes in scholarly publishing in the twentieth century in the UK. My chapter is due out and has been due out for some years in Volume VII of the History of the Book in Britain (CUP) so I say that with some specialised knowledge. That is historical research
But this is an advocacy piece.
Yes it is always helpful for you Steve (or for any of us for that matter) to appeal to something in a newspaper which backs up one’s views but look to see who Buranyi quotes? Why do they all the same thing? Why do they ask the same activists? Why not ask other scholars why they do not boycott Elsevier? It is not difficult to refuse to serve on an editorial board or referee especially as we all know it does not get much credit yet.
I would suggest that if we are looking at the open agenda as a whole Elsevier do have some transparent policies and some positive policies probably better than other non-commercial publishers which make large surpluses. I am not going to analyse them now but I do recall that the first retraction policies came from Elsevier. Note that I have never worked for Elsevier or Pergamon
A coterie of journalists on the Guardian have been pushing a line for decades. It is their right to do so as long as they do not pretend to give a balanced view.
Anthony
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.
--
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.
--
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.
Glenn Hampson
These are provocative topics that deserve much more thoughtful conversation than we’ve ever been able to give them here (indeed, I don’t know of any forum where these have been discussed in detail). Perceptions and misperceptions about the roles of publishers and the separation (as David notes) between the business of research and the business of publishing have been fueling animosity in the shadows for many years, making it difficult to come to the table and discuss publishing reform as one community. And unfortunately, once “profit margins” get mentioned, mobs tend to form with pitchforks and torches and the likelihood that commercial publishing leaders are going to engage in the conversation drops to nil.
I’ve spoken with several of these leaders about these topics---they are your colleagues right here in OSI and they’re reading these email threads. You have a unique opportunity here to ask questions and get answers directly---not from a third party who reported on something they interpreted---but from the primary sources. So please, when you discuss issues like this (some of you should know better because you’ve been on this list for a long time, and some of you are new so this request is new), don’t lob insults as though you’re speaking to a group of like-minded partisans. OSI is a diverse group of leaders from many different stakeholder groups and different parts of the world---including leaders from all major commercial publishing companies---all of whom are committed to the same cause of improving open. Not everyone on this list agrees on the same path to more open, of course, so please respect the diversity of perspectives in this space and take advantage of this resource to broaden your own knowledge and perspectives.
All this said, again, I don’t think any publishing leader is going to feel comfortable participating in a debate about profit margins in this public forum. But I do think this and related issues (like the role of publishers) is worth discussing. Therefore, if you could please, give me a few days to consult with the OSI planning committee about this matter. Maybe the best approach here would be to try to mediate a “bifurcated” conversation---a small group of OSI reps takes questions regarding profit margins and such and passes these along to publishing reps, who (if they’re willing) then provide answers to pass back to the questioners via the OSI group. We can keep doing this until we have a rich document that really takes a thoughtful look at these issues. And then we’ll circulate this document on this listserv for further debate (and maybe even package this up for publication as paper).
More soon and thanks,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
Joyce Ogburn
academic=researchers, scholars. in my use of "academic" there is no intention of populism or irrelevancy. I could not do it because I am a researcher.I have know not yet know anyone rejecting to be part of an editorial board -old and young, early stage and consolidated researchers alike. it is simply a badge of honor no matter how irrelevant such post may be -and here, I am really using irrelevant with all its meaning.the paper is not longer the atomic unit of scholarly communication but it hasn't been replaced by anything. in order for it to be replaced there must be real value attached to the replacement or replacements. participating in a mailing list, no matter how important it is, does not have any value in advancing an academic career. innovations in scholarly communication fall far behind from those in other areas simply because there is no competition in this market. publishers dont need to innovate because the market is static.why do u expect to get a solution from those who helped and have benefitted from the problem? what is the incentive? certainly the common good is not part of their agenda, and should not be because first and foremost they have a fiduciary responsibility. this falls on us, researchers, to quite simply reboot the system. but... again, I am optimistic, this will happen in 3 or 4 generations.
Anthony Watkinson
I see the American Chemical Society has filed suit against SciHub. What I take to be a press release is available here: http://www.stm-publishing.com/american-chemical-society-files-suit-against-sci-hub/
Anthony.
Fiore, Steve
- Creating the product (academics as authors who are not paid by the publishers)
- Reviewing the content (academics as peer reviewers who are not paid by the publishers)
- Overseeing the reviews (academics acting as editors who may or may not be paid by the publishers)
- Typesetting the articles (publishers)
- Distributing the articles (publishers)
- Indexing the articles (publishers)
- Housing the articles (publishers)
The question that can be added to the larger discussion is whether the cost to society for knowledge sharing is worth the price paid to publishers for items 4-7, particularly in the modern digital age. That is, distributing, indexing, and housing articles (5-7) is not the challenge and labor intensive job it was in the pre-internet era. Further, although the claim is often made that the service of managing reviews (1-3) is what publishers provide, as many of us know, we do not need publishers for this. We only need software. As an example, for those of us who have run conferences with peer review, the cost for such software ranges from free to a few thousand dollars (here are two that I've used -- http://easychair.org/ and http://www.conftool.net/index.html). A high volume conference likely gets more articles submitted than most journals do in an entire year and conference chairs are able to effectively coordinate peer review as well as article publications (proceedings papers) in a much more time-compressed time frame using this kind of software. And we do it for free.
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:26 AM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative'
Glenn Hampson
Hi Steve,
Take a look at the two “What is Publishing” reports from OSI2016:
- http://osinitiative.org/osi-reports/osi2016-reports/report-from-the-what-is-publishing-workgroup-1/
- http://osinitiative.org/osi-reports/osi2016-reports/report-from-the-what-is-publishing-workgroup-2/
I think these groups did a good job of trying to get to the core of what you’re talking about here. In the meantime, I’ve been bothering the planning committee with emails about what to do next with this topic---just because I know it won’t be resolved in this forum and it deserves to be discussed, but fairly and accurately. From the latest email I sent them this morning, FYI, here’s another take on what you’re discussing:
“So a parallel conversation about the role of publishers would also be important here. For example, what would the research world look like if every researcher just dumped their studies onto the internet without intermediaries? Would this world be good or bad for science, or even realistic since infomediaries will naturally spring up anyway in a wholly decentralized information environment---editors, fact-checkers, marketers, web hubs, and other service providers? What value does publishing writ large provide in an information environment anyway? The “what is publishing” groups from last year’s meeting started looking into this philosophical [question] of what it means to publish something. What is implicit in the publishing contract? Authenticity? Accuracy? Authoritativeness? Registration? Dissemination? One of the groups defined it as “A process that captures (or creates) and makes discoverable artifacts of knowledge in order to facilitate the use and reuse of scholarship on a global scale, and that enables research communities to build upon the work of others and provides a venue for evolving discourse.” In today’s world especially, you would think that the role of trusted infomediaries should be growing increasingly important, not being challenged. But the [allegations and/or perceptions of] profiteering and double-dipping…seem to be getting in the way in this case.”
Best,
Alexander Garcia Castro
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.
--
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.
Glenn Hampson
And Steve, not to belabor this here (especially since I just suggested that this should be a separate discussion), but I spent 12 years running a small publishing company and can tell you from my own experience (which may not be entirely applicable to journal publishing) that even the costs you identified as being borne by the publisher are significant:
- Typesetting the articles (publishers): This can take anywhere from a day to a week depending on the length of the piece, the number of figures involved, any additional artwork needed, particular layout challenges (citations, line breaks, etc.), templating, proofreading after typesetting, and so on. Let’s say you’re paying one person $40/hour for this work. That’s somewhere in the $500-$2000, just for “typesetting.” And that’s just the one version---not print + online (a whole different process/product).
- Distributing the articles (publishers): Nowadays, there are a kagillion different “distribution” channels (not to mention PR channels---press releases, author interviews, etc.). And you’ve skipped a step here---before distribution happens, the article actually needs to be printed/bound/shipped/warehoused, and/or posted and SEO’d. Distribution is the make or break of a book. Do a bad job and it will never see the light of day---even a beautifully written and typeset piece will die a lonely death on a shelf because the distribution process or network failed. So for distribution, that’s really priceless---that’s why you hire a big gun to be your publisher. But for the sake of argument, let’s say it adds $2,500 to the cost of your product.
- Indexing the articles (publishers): I don’t know what’s involved here at the journal level---a few hours of labor? $200 extra?
- Housing the articles (publishers): Physically housing print articles is a killer---maintaining and operating warehouse space for unsold products is a slow drain on revenues. Housing web articles costs money too when you factor in the cost of the staff involved---people who keep the website current, organized, etc. So depending on whether your article is print, web or both, this cost adds up. Again, for the sake of argument, add $200 extra.
So what does this add up to for the publisher’s value added (or at least what you would hire a publisher to do for you)? Maybe somewhere between $1,000 and $5,000 per article? And this is more or less in line with what the publisher charges for APCs? And depending on the number of subscribers, I would think these costs (plus article download costs) would need to more or less pencil out, leaving some room for profit so the company can stay afloat and keep providing goods and services?
Anyway, this is all just back-of-the-envelope stuff. Can authors “self-publish” or find economy routes to publishing instead? Absolutely. Is this the norm? No. Publishing is separate from research, and yet---as we’re all acutely aware---it’s also quite intertwined. The hooks and levers, incentives and feedback loops are everywhere.
I don’t know yet whether this separate discussion/paper I’m proposing is going to fly, but if it does, please consider volunteering to help with it.
Thanks,
Glenn
Peter Potter
<image001.jpg>
<image001.jpg>
Michael Wolfe
Peter
From: osi2016-25@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi2016-25@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Fiore, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:07 AM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
To Glenn's point about the relevance of profit margins to the discussion, I think that it is perfectly appropriate because we continually hear from publishers that they provide a service and they deserve to be paid for that service. For example, in the Guardian article, it states: "A representative of RELX Group, the official name of Elsevier since 2015, told me that it and other publishers 'serve the research community by doing things that they need that they either cannot, or do not do on their own, and charge a fair price for that service'”. This gets to the core of the issue and we can ask, what exactly is the service publishers provide. At the simplest level, when it comes to "product" of scholarship (i.e., the journal article), we have the following functions (and who does them):
- Creating the product (academics as authors who are not paid by the publishers)
- Reviewing the content (academics as peer reviewers who are not paid by the publishers)
- Overseeing the reviews (academics acting as editors who may or may not be paid by the publishers)
- Typesetting the articles (publishers)
- Distributing the articles (publishers)
- Indexing the articles (publishers)
- Housing the articles (publishers)
The question that can be added to the larger discussion is whether the cost to society for knowledge sharing is worth the price paid to publishers for items 4-7, particularly in the modern digital age. That is, distributing, indexing, and housing articles (5-7) is not the challenge and labor intensive job it was in the pre-internet era. Further, although the claim is often made that the service of managing reviews (1-3) is what publishers provide, as many of us know, we do not need publishers for this. We only need software. As an example, for those of us who have run conferences with peer review, the cost for such software ranges from free to a few thousand dollars (here are two that I've used -- http://easychair.org/ and http://www.conftool.net/index.html). A high volume conference likely gets more articles submitted than most journals do in an entire year and conference chairs are able to effectively coordinate peer review as well as article publications (proceedings papers) in a much more time-compressed time frame using this kind of software. And we do it for free.Best,Steve
From: osi2016-25@googlegroups.com <osi2016-25@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:26 AM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative'
Subject: RE: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
These are provocative topics that deserve much more thoughtful conversation than we’ve ever been able to give them here (indeed, I don’t know of any forum where these have been discussed in detail). Perceptions and misperceptions about the roles of publishers and the separation (as David notes) between the business of research and the business of publishing have been fueling animosity in the shadows for many years, making it difficult to come to the table and discuss publishing reform as one community. And unfortunately, once “profit margins” get mentioned, mobs tend to form with pitchforks and torches and the likelihood that commercial publishing leaders are going to engage in the conversation drops to nil.I’ve spoken with several of these leaders about these topics---they are your colleagues right here in OSI and they’re reading these email threads. You have a unique opportunity here to ask questions and get answers directly---not from a third party who reported on something they interpreted---but from the primary sources. So please, when you discuss issues like this (some of you should know better because you’ve been on this list for a long time, and some of you are new so this request is new), don’t lob insults as though you’re speaking to a group of like-minded partisans. OSI is a diverse group of leaders from many different stakeholder groups and different parts of the world---including leaders from all major commercial publishing companies---all of whom are committed to the same cause of improving open. Not everyone on this list agrees on the same path to more open, of course, so please respect the diversity of perspectives in this space and take advantage of this resource to broaden your own knowledge and perspectives.All this said, again, I don’t think any publishing leader is going to feel comfortable participating in a debate about profit margins in this public forum. But I do think this and related issues (like the role of publishers) is worth discussing. Therefore, if you could please, give me a few days to consult with the OSI planning committee about this matter. Maybe the best approach here would be to try to mediate a “bifurcated” conversation---a small group of OSI reps takes questions regarding profit margins and such and passes these along to publishing reps, who (if they’re willing) then provide answers to pass back to the questioners via the OSI group. We can keep doing this until we have a rich document that really takes a thoughtful look at these issues. And then we’ll circulate this document on this listserv for further debate (and maybe even package this up for publication as paper).More soon and thanks,GlennGlenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)<image001.jpg>
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
Peter Potter
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
Glenn Hampson
Oh boy---you’re the expert here but I feel like I need to disagree with this characterization, at least in part. In the book industry anyway, the top 10% of titles (or whatever the exact figure is) make it possible to publish the bottom 90 percent. Without Steven King and Ann Rice, publishers would be unable to risk publishing everything else. Most books never turn a profit, or even break even on the investments publishers make in them. I imagine (based on what I’ve heard and read) that the situation in journal publishing isn’t all that dissimilar. Investments are recouped on some titles but not all, and this helps keep the entire enterprise afloat. So there’s a sort of Robin Hood benefit built into the publishing enterprise, although yes---this benefit is “self-contained” if you will (to the publishers stable of authors and ideas).
As for overflow profits, it’s important to note that movies are not financed through publishing profits but by media conglomerates and investors---publishers aren’t that rich. However, without copyright (and patents)---without some legal assurance that ideas and products and the investments of time and money and expertise that go into them couldn’t just be duplicated at will---there would be no investment in movies or books or anything else with retail potential. So copyright in this sense serves a purpose. Academic authors don’t necessarily benefit through royalties, but they do benefit by exposure, by the legitimization of their work, by the tenure and promotion benefits that accrue, and so on---all very real “payments in kind.”
I agree with you about the rest Michael---about how (maybe) the copyright model for scholarly publishing is more expansive than necessary, and especially (and this is where it gets touchy) the fact that what’s being protected is a byproduct of public investment and also knowledge that belongs to the world. So yes---thinking through how we protect the rights of authors and the publishing process and entities (to the extent these exist somewhere in the process) but still “free the science” (in the words of Karla Cosgiff @ electrochem.org) is the challenge of the age.
Cheers,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
From: Michael Wolfe [mailto:mrw...@ucdavis.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 1:57 PM
To: Peter Potter <pj...@vt.edu>
Cc: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Here's another view:
Peter
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Fiore, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:07 AM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
To Glenn's point about the relevance of profit margins to the discussion, I think that it is perfectly appropriate because we continually hear from publishers that they provide a service and they deserve to be paid for that service. For example, in the Guardian article, it states: "A representative of RELX Group, the official name of Elsevier since 2015, told me that it and other publishers 'serve the research community by doing things that they need that they either cannot, or do not do on their own, and charge a fair price for that service'”. This gets to the core of the issue and we can ask, what exactly is the service publishers provide. At the simplest level, when it comes to "product" of scholarship (i.e., the journal article), we have the following functions (and who does them):
- Creating the product (academics as authors who are not paid by the publishers)
- Reviewing the content (academics as peer reviewers who are not paid by the publishers)
- Overseeing the reviews (academics acting as editors who may or may not be paid by the publishers)
- Typesetting the articles (publishers)
- Distributing the articles (publishers)
- Indexing the articles (publishers)
- Housing the articles (publishers)
The question that can be added to the larger discussion is whether the cost to society for knowledge sharing is worth the price paid to publishers for items 4-7, particularly in the modern digital age. That is, distributing, indexing, and housing articles (5-7) is not the challenge and labor intensive job it was in the pre-internet era. Further, although the claim is often made that the service of managing reviews (1-3) is what publishers provide, as many of us know, we do not need publishers for this. We only need software. As an example, for those of us who have run conferences with peer review, the cost for such software ranges from free to a few thousand dollars (here are two that I've used -- http://easychair.org/ and http://www.conftool.net/index.html). A high volume conference likely gets more articles submitted than most journals do in an entire year and conference chairs are able to effectively coordinate peer review as well as article publications (proceedings papers) in a much more time-compressed time frame using this kind of software. And we do it for free.Best,
Steve
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:26 AM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative'
Subject: RE: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
These are provocative topics that deserve much more thoughtful conversation than we’ve ever been able to give them here (indeed, I don’t know of any forum where these have been discussed in detail). Perceptions and misperceptions about the roles of publishers and the separation (as David notes) between the business of research and the business of publishing have been fueling animosity in the shadows for many years, making it difficult to come to the table and discuss publishing reform as one community. And unfortunately, once “profit margins” get mentioned, mobs tend to form with pitchforks and torches and the likelihood that commercial publishing leaders are going to engage in the conversation drops to nil.
I’ve spoken with several of these leaders about these topics---they are your colleagues right here in OSI and they’re reading these email threads. You have a unique opportunity here to ask questions and get answers directly---not from a third party who reported on something they interpreted---but from the primary sources. So please, when you discuss issues like this (some of you should know better because you’ve been on this list for a long time, and some of you are new so this request is new), don’t lob insults as though you’re speaking to a group of like-minded partisans. OSI is a diverse group of leaders from many different stakeholder groups and different parts of the world---including leaders from all major commercial publishing companies---all of whom are committed to the same cause of improving open. Not everyone on this list agrees on the same path to more open, of course, so please respect the diversity of perspectives in this space and take advantage of this resource to broaden your own knowledge and perspectives.
All this said, again, I don’t think any publishing leader is going to feel comfortable participating in a debate about profit margins in this public forum. But I do think this and related issues (like the role of publishers) is worth discussing. Therefore, if you could please, give me a few days to consult with the OSI planning committee about this matter. Maybe the best approach here would be to try to mediate a “bifurcated” conversation---a small group of OSI reps takes questions regarding profit margins and such and passes these along to publishing reps, who (if they’re willing) then provide answers to pass back to the questioners via the OSI group. We can keep doing this until we have a rich document that really takes a thoughtful look at these issues. And then we’ll circulate this document on this listserv for further debate (and maybe even package this up for publication as paper).
More soon and thanks,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)<image001.jpg>
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Martin G. Hicks
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:38 PM
To: 'David Wojick' <dwo...@craigellachie.us>; osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
David, I have not read the report either, and if it were possible to get a copy I would be most interested.
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
Michael Wolfe
Peter
From: osi2016-25@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi2016-25@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Fiore, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:07 AM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
To Glenn's point about the relevance of profit margins to the discussion, I think that it is perfectly appropriate because we continually hear from publishers that they provide a service and they deserve to be paid for that service. For example, in the Guardian article, it states: "A representative of RELX Group, the official name of Elsevier since 2015, told me that it and other publishers 'serve the research community by doing things that they need that they either cannot, or do not do on their own, and charge a fair price for that service'”. This gets to the core of the issue and we can ask, what exactly is the service publishers provide. At the simplest level, when it comes to "product" of scholarship (i.e., the journal article), we have the following functions (and who does them):
- Creating the product (academics as authors who are not paid by the publishers)
- Reviewing the content (academics as peer reviewers who are not paid by the publishers)
- Overseeing the reviews (academics acting as editors who may or may not be paid by the publishers)
- Typesetting the articles (publishers)
- Distributing the articles (publishers)
- Indexing the articles (publishers)
- Housing the articles (publishers)
The question that can be added to the larger discussion is whether the cost to society for knowledge sharing is worth the price paid to publishers for items 4-7, particularly in the modern digital age. That is, distributing, indexing, and housing articles (5-7) is not the challenge and labor intensive job it was in the pre-internet era. Further, although the claim is often made that the service of managing reviews (1-3) is what publishers provide, as many of us know, we do not need publishers for this. We only need software. As an example, for those of us who have run conferences with peer review, the cost for such software ranges from free to a few thousand dollars (here are two that I've used -- http://easychair.org/ and http://www.conftool.net/index.html). A high volume conference likely gets more articles submitted than most journals do in an entire year and conference chairs are able to effectively coordinate peer review as well as article publications (proceedings papers) in a much more time-compressed time frame using this kind of software. And we do it for free.Best,
Steve
From: osi2016-25@googlegroups.com <osi2016-25@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:26 AM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative'
Subject: RE: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
These are provocative topics that deserve much more thoughtful conversation than we’ve ever been able to give them here (indeed, I don’t know of any forum where these have been discussed in detail). Perceptions and misperceptions about the roles of publishers and the separation (as David notes) between the business of research and the business of publishing have been fueling animosity in the shadows for many years, making it difficult to come to the table and discuss publishing reform as one community. And unfortunately, once “profit margins” get mentioned, mobs tend to form with pitchforks and torches and the likelihood that commercial publishing leaders are going to engage in the conversation drops to nil.
I’ve spoken with several of these leaders about these topics---they are your colleagues right here in OSI and they’re reading these email threads. You have a unique opportunity here to ask questions and get answers directly---not from a third party who reported on something they interpreted---but from the primary sources. So please, when you discuss issues like this (some of you should know better because you’ve been on this list for a long time, and some of you are new so this request is new), don’t lob insults as though you’re speaking to a group of like-minded partisans. OSI is a diverse group of leaders from many different stakeholder groups and different parts of the world---including leaders from all major commercial publishing companies---all of whom are committed to the same cause of improving open. Not everyone on this list agrees on the same path to more open, of course, so please respect the diversity of perspectives in this space and take advantage of this resource to broaden your own knowledge and perspectives.
All this said, again, I don’t think any publishing leader is going to feel comfortable participating in a debate about profit margins in this public forum. But I do think this and related issues (like the role of publishers) is worth discussing. Therefore, if you could please, give me a few days to consult with the OSI planning committee about this matter. Maybe the best approach here would be to try to mediate a “bifurcated” conversation---a small group of OSI reps takes questions regarding profit margins and such and passes these along to publishing reps, who (if they’re willing) then provide answers to pass back to the questioners via the OSI group. We can keep doing this until we have a rich document that really takes a thoughtful look at these issues. And then we’ll circulate this document on this listserv for further debate (and maybe even package this up for publication as paper).
More soon and thanks,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)<image001.jpg>
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
Michael Wolfe
Scholarly Communications Officer | UC Davis Library
--
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.
Glenn Hampson
Solution: Pay author royalties 😊 (case closed, next subject)
Peter
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Fiore, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:07 AM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
To Glenn's point about the relevance of profit margins to the discussion, I think that it is perfectly appropriate because we continually hear from publishers that they provide a service and they deserve to be paid for that service. For example, in the Guardian article, it states: "A representative of RELX Group, the official name of Elsevier since 2015, told me that it and other publishers 'serve the research community by doing things that they need that they either cannot, or do not do on their own, and charge a fair price for that service'”. This gets to the core of the issue and we can ask, what exactly is the service publishers provide. At the simplest level, when it comes to "product" of scholarship (i.e., the journal article), we have the following functions (and who does them):
- Creating the product (academics as authors who are not paid by the publishers)
- Reviewing the content (academics as peer reviewers who are not paid by the publishers)
- Overseeing the reviews (academics acting as editors who may or may not be paid by the publishers)
- Typesetting the articles (publishers)
- Distributing the articles (publishers)
- Indexing the articles (publishers)
- Housing the articles (publishers)
The question that can be added to the larger discussion is whether the cost to society for knowledge sharing is worth the price paid to publishers for items 4-7, particularly in the modern digital age. That is, distributing, indexing, and housing articles (5-7) is not the challenge and labor intensive job it was in the pre-internet era. Further, although the claim is often made that the service of managing reviews (1-3) is what publishers provide, as many of us know, we do not need publishers for this. We only need software. As an example, for those of us who have run conferences with peer review, the cost for such software ranges from free to a few thousand dollars (here are two that I've used -- http://easychair.org/ and http://www.conftool.net/index.html). A high volume conference likely gets more articles submitted than most journals do in an entire year and conference chairs are able to effectively coordinate peer review as well as article publications (proceedings papers) in a much more time-compressed time frame using this kind of software. And we do it for free.Best,
Steve
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:26 AM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative'
Subject: RE: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
These are provocative topics that deserve much more thoughtful conversation than we’ve ever been able to give them here (indeed, I don’t know of any forum where these have been discussed in detail). Perceptions and misperceptions about the roles of publishers and the separation (as David notes) between the business of research and the business of publishing have been fueling animosity in the shadows for many years, making it difficult to come to the table and discuss publishing reform as one community. And unfortunately, once “profit margins” get mentioned, mobs tend to form with pitchforks and torches and the likelihood that commercial publishing leaders are going to engage in the conversation drops to nil.
I’ve spoken with several of these leaders about these topics---they are your colleagues right here in OSI and they’re reading these email threads. You have a unique opportunity here to ask questions and get answers directly---not from a third party who reported on something they interpreted---but from the primary sources. So please, when you discuss issues like this (some of you should know better because you’ve been on this list for a long time, and some of you are new so this request is new), don’t lob insults as though you’re speaking to a group of like-minded partisans. OSI is a diverse group of leaders from many different stakeholder groups and different parts of the world---including leaders from all major commercial publishing companies---all of whom are committed to the same cause of improving open. Not everyone on this list agrees on the same path to more open, of course, so please respect the diversity of perspectives in this space and take advantage of this resource to broaden your own knowledge and perspectives.
All this said, again, I don’t think any publishing leader is going to feel comfortable participating in a debate about profit margins in this public forum. But I do think this and related issues (like the role of publishers) is worth discussing. Therefore, if you could please, give me a few days to consult with the OSI planning committee about this matter. Maybe the best approach here would be to try to mediate a “bifurcated” conversation---a small group of OSI reps takes questions regarding profit margins and such and passes these along to publishing reps, who (if they’re willing) then provide answers to pass back to the questioners via the OSI group. We can keep doing this until we have a rich document that really takes a thoughtful look at these issues. And then we’ll circulate this document on this listserv for further debate (and maybe even package this up for publication as paper).
More soon and thanks,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)<image001.jpg>
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Martin G. Hicks
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:38 PM
To: 'David Wojick' <dwo...@craigellachie.us>; osi20...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
David, I have not read the report either, and if it were possible to get a copy I would be most interested.
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
Michael Wolfe
Scholarly Communications Officer | UC Davis Library
--
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.
Richard Poynder
Glenn,
In my view you are here underlining the flawed premise of this list, and of what OSI is trying to achieve. The truth is that the interests of the research community are no longer aligned with the interests of publishers, and to pretend otherwise is put your head in the sand.
That is why I suggested early on that the list should not include publishers. The research community needs to decide independently what it wants scholarly communication to look like in the future, and then ask publishers to bid for the services it wants to outsource, if outsourcing is deemed necessary.
If the moderator of the list (or a “small group of OSI reps”) has to act as an intermediary between the group and some unspecified publishing leaders who are too shy, or simply unwilling, to discuss issues openly then, really, what is the point?
Richard Poynder
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Hampson
Sent: 28 June 2017 16:27
Mike Taylor
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.
--
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.
Anthony Watkinson
Dear Mike and Richard
I have been a publisher but am now not one. Are you saying that no-one who is a publisher should not be a member of this list or are you suggesting only that some publishers should be if you approve of them. I am thinking of so called mission-led or scholar-led publishers and are you suggesting that only researchers should be members and others have to take so some of test to be accepted to make sure that their interests are aligned with those of the research community?
Anthony
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
Sent: 29 June 2017 09:55
To: Richard Poynder
Cc: Glenn Hampson; The Open Scholarship Initiative
Subject: Re: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
I don't always (by a long chalk!) agree with Richard; but here, I think he is right on target.
-- Mike.
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.
--
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.
--
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.
Alexander Garcia Castro
Richard Poynder
Anthony,
Yes, I realise it is complicated because over the years a somewhat unhealthy and incestuous relationship has developed between publishers and researchers. However, I think my larger point stands: productive conversations between “publishers” (however one cares to define them) and the research community are increasingly difficult to achieve. If it was not so, Glenn would not need to post the message he did.
I also hear Glenn’s point about his having to turn to these publishers in order to fund OSI. But that too is problematic, since having to rely on publishers to fund events helps maintain the status quo.
Richard Poynder
Anthony Watkinson
Hi Richard
There are very few actual researchers on this list and a lot more “others”. I recall the small number who were able to attend the conference.
I think you write very interestingly in your blog but really do you think in your pronouncements that you actually somehow represent “the research community”? On this list we want to realise the open agenda because we think it is a good thing for the progress of knowledge. Not all researchers accept what we think is good for them. As I work on this I know the arguments against. I would hope that persuasion might change researcher attitude.
As to getting money from publishers in my short research career I have received money from a range of funders including Sloan, PRC, Jisc, the British Library, Mendeley, the EU. The one thing I (we) insist on is that are conclusions cannot be determined by our funders whoever they are and that we can publish. Publishers seem to recognise this not all the others do.
As someone also who runs conferences almost everyone tries to get sponsorships – again they should have nothing to do with the programme.
Anthony
Mike Taylor
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.
--
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.
--
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.
Mike Taylor
Hi Richard
There are very few actual researchers on this list and a lot more “others”. I recall the small number who were able to attend the conference.
I think you write very interestingly in your blog but really do you think in your pronouncements that you actually somehow represent “the research community”? On this list we want to realise the open agenda because we think it is a good thing for the progress of knowledge. Not all researchers accept what we think is good for them. As I work on this I know the arguments against. I would hope that persuasion might change researcher attitude.
As to getting money from publishers in my short research career I have received money from a range of funders including Sloan, PRC, Jisc, the British Library, Mendeley, the EU. The one thing I (we) insist on is that are conclusions cannot be determined by our funders whoever they are and that we can publish. Publishers seem to recognise this not all the others do.
As someone also who runs conferences almost everyone tries to get sponsorships – again they should have nothing to do with the programme.
Anthony
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.
--
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.
--
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.
David Wojick
Glenn,
In my view you are here underlining the flawed premise of this list, and of what OSI is trying to achieve. The truth is that the interests of the research community are no longer aligned with the interests of publishers, and to pretend otherwise is put your head in the sand.
That is why I suggested early on that the list should not include publishers. The research community needs to decide independently what it wants scholarly communication to look like in the future, and then ask publishers to bid for the services it wants to outsource, if outsourcing is deemed necessary.
If the moderator of the list (or a “small group of OSI reps”) has to act as an intermediary between the group and some unspecified publishing leaders who are too shy, or simply unwilling, to discuss issues openly then, really, what is the point?
Richard Poynder
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Hampson
Sent: 28 June 2017 16:27
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
These are provocative topics that deserve much more thoughtful conversation than we’ve ever been able to give them here (indeed, I don’t know of any forum where these have been discussed in detail). Perceptions and misperceptions about the roles of publishers and the separation (as David notes) between the business of research and the business of publishing have been fueling animosity in the shadows for many years, making it difficult to come to the table and discuss publishing reform as one community. And unfortunately, once “profit margins” get mentioned, mobs tend to form with pitchforks and torches and the likelihood that commercial publishing leaders are going to engage in the conversation drops to nil.
I’ve spoken with several of these leaders about these topics---they are your colleagues right here in OSI and they’re reading these email threads. You have a unique opportunity here to ask questions and get answers directly---not from a third party who reported on something they interpreted---but from the primary sources. So please, when you discuss issues like this (some of you should know better because you’ve been on this list for a long time, and some of you are new so this request is new), don’t lob insults as though you’re speaking to a group of like-minded partisans. OSI is a diverse group of leaders from many different stakeholder groups and different parts of the world---including leaders from all major commercial publishing companies---all of whom are committed to the same cause of improving open. Not everyone on this list agrees on the same path to more open, of course, so please respect the diversity of perspectives in this space and take advantage of this resource to broaden your own knowledge and perspectives.
All this said, again, I don’t think any publishing leader is going to feel comfortable participating in a debate about profit margins in this public forum. But I do think this and related issues (like the role of publishers) is worth discussing. Therefore, if you could please, give me a few days to consult with the OSI planning committee about this matter. Maybe the best approach here would be to try to mediate a “bifurcated” conversation---a small group of OSI reps takes questions regarding profit margins and such and passes these along to publishing reps, who (if they’re willing) then provide answers to pass back to the questioners via the OSI group. We can keep doing this until we have a rich document that really takes a thoughtful look at these issues. And then we’ll circulate this document on this listserv for further debate (and maybe even package this up for publication as paper).
More soon and thanks,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<image001.jpg>
Jo De
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.
--
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.
--
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.
Richard Poynder
Hi Anthony,
I am not sure why you think I am claiming to speak for the research community. On my blog I self-describe as an independent journalist and blogger. Journalists usually view their role as that of reporting and commenting on the world around them, in my case the world of scholarly communication. So these are just my views and I don’t expect people to necessarily agree with me.
I think you are right to say that there are few actual researchers on this list. Unfortunately we don’t know who is on the list. As I recall, when I asked for that information I was told to find it out for myself. When I invited people to volunteer the information I got less than 5 responses.
But if we are correct to assume that there are few actual researchers on the list then that is serious problem. It is also problematic that there appear to be few list members who could be said to represent the developing world, a point I have also made in the past.
Personally, I don’t believe anyone should be taking sponsorship money from publishers in order to discuss (or hold events about) scholarly communication. Again, that is just my view and I don’t claim to be speaking on behalf of anyone but myself. Nor do I expect people to agree with me.
Alexander Garcia Castro
David Wojick
David
Alexander Garcia Castro
Williams NWAGWU
I think I am attracted to this discourse that touches on the research community metaphor. It is obviously difficult to delineate or even describe, but we have communities of practice. What is the role of professional and academic bodies, if not to attempt
to demystify this metaphor? Some great deal of structure can be discerned in a "research community" when the constituent academic bodies are well organised.
Sent: 29 June 2017 11:20
To: osi20...@googlegroups.com
Rick Anderson
Martin G. Hicks
Richard,
I agree with your comments about lack of input from researchers and the developing world. Whether other folks are just more vocal…
A lot of interesting discussions have been started on this list, but perhaps through lack of input from the above mentioned, the discussion often does not progress very far; at times one gets the feeling that one is in a publishers marketing echo-chamber. The provocative questions, whether profit margins or copyright, whatever, don’t really get answered – often because there are no explanations other than it is the normal objective of a commercial company to maximize profits.
I think that often the discussions mix goods with services. Sure, it costs money to publish scholarly articles. How that payment for these services is carried out is open to discussion. How much profit a company or society should be making on publishing publically funded research results also. However, the question is whether a scientific article should be regarded as a good to be bought and sold, or whether scientific knowledge is a global public good which should be freely available to all, in particular including the developing world, and without having to beg for it. I am of the opinion that it is the latter.
On sponsorship, I am of your opinion; in general it is rarely done for purely altruistic reasons.
Richard Poynder
Hi Rick,
I think I addressed your first point in my reply to Anthony here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/osi2016-25/3QCkHfRmQnc/0C-BafEgAwAJ. I agree that the line cannot be drawn clearly.
On the second point, I agree that OA advocates can also be unwilling to discuss issues openly.
But for me this all takes us back to the same issue: conversations in this area are unproductive because people who have the word “publisher” written on their hat can rarely come to agreement about scholarly publishing with people who have “researcher” written on their hat – and the premise of this list is that they can.
So one can argue about the details, but as Mike Roy put it the other day, the fact is that conversations always end up “back into the usual territory of fundamental philosophical differences.”
Richard Poynder
Rick Anderson
But for me this all takes us back to the same issue: conversations in this area are unproductive because people who have the word “publisher” written on their hat can rarely come to agreement about scholarly publishing with people who have “researcher” written on their hat – and the premise of this list is that they can.
Glenn Hampson
Hi Everyone,
Man---living out here in the Pacific time zone means that by 8:30 a.m. (a reasonably early start, right?) you guys have already gone 12 rounds. Sorry to tag in late to this wrestling match.
The bottom line is this: The Open Scholarship Initiative is a global effort to improve the scholarly communication system that involves ALL stakeholders. Period. This is a deliberate and carefully considered decision that UNESCO, nSCI and the OSI organizing group made in 2014 and that the vast majority of you, the members of OSI, have embraced. I would add to this that as Wim reiterated at OSI2017, OSI is a coalition of the willing. We are truly grateful for everyone’s participation but no one is required to stay. We have made every effort to include a broad range of important voices in this conversation, but for the purpose of working together toward common ground and solutions. Granted there are going to be many bumps in the road along the way, but the guiding principle of this group is communication and understanding.
Richard---I’m sorry if I lost or misunderstood some previous request of yours regarding who’s on this list. I’m pasting a list below of everyone who was on the OSI list at one point. I haven’t crossed-checked this list with Google Groups to see if all of these people are still online, but the numbers are a rough match (about 390 names).
There were a few other points raised on this thread but I’ll address just the one regarding the utility of this list. Specifically,
should we use this discussion list to try to resolve complicated issues? Probably not. Lists like this can be helpful insofar as revealing some of the perspectives involved (not all), but all too often the middle voices get drowned out by the more passionate ones. So when we encounter issues that are likely to spin out never-ending threads of discussion that have no hope of nearing a consensus, it helps---after a point anyway (after it seems like most of the different viewpoints have been expressed)---to pull a discussion like this off to the side and try to find common ground and a path forward instead of just arguing in circles. So far we’ve just held side conversations via email and reported back to the group later, but going forward, we’ll be developing more robust ways of meeting---video chat tools, maybe using Basecamp to rough out actual papers, and so on (the details are still being considered). Please also note that for every 20 emails you see on this list, there are at least 1-2 that come directly to me. So all told, there are helpful side-conversations happening here that are off the public radar---discussions between delegates who disagree in public but end up speaking to each other privately (even working together), discussions that help refine our understanding of the issues involved, discussions that open doors to new ideas and partnerships, and so on.
Finally, contrary to how it may seem reading this thread, our experience coming out of OSI2017 (as you know if you read my emails 😊) was that there is a broad consensus in this community on OSI’s reason for being and a general path forward. The voices we’re hearing mostly in this current discussion are not representative of the 2017 consensus. The OSI2017 workgroup and stakeholder group reports will be published soon and I think after reading these (along with the final OSI2017 report) you’ll begin to see the bigger picture here more clearly. OSI, after all, isn’t about a listserv. It’s about working together across boundaries---geographical and otherwise. Once the ball really starts rolling here I think there will be less discussion and concern about OSI’s raison d’etre and more concern about making sure we’re moving in the right direction, tackling the right challenges, and so on.
All the best to everyone and thanks again for your contributions,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
---from the OSI2017 program, circulated earlier---
OSI membership
To the best of our knowledge, the following 380 individuals (listed alphabetically by first name) are currently members of OSI. These individuals belonged to OSI at some point in the last several years, and about half the delegates on this list attended OSI2016. Only five members out of 385 have requested to be removed from the list since the start of OSI, and one member is part of the listserv but not identified here by request (more may have dropped out on their own without notifying OSI; however, it’s not likely that many have done this since the listserv currently contains 392 members and since we do often hear from a wide variety of delegates who follow the conversations in OSI but don’t regularly contribute).
OSI delegate | Current title & institution |
Aaron McCollough | Head, Scholarly Communication & Publishing, University of Illinois Library |
Abel Packer | Co-founder and director, SciELO |
Ada Emmett | Head of the Office of Scholarly Communication & Copyright, University of Kansas |
Adam Huftalen | Senior Manager of Federal Government Affairs, Elsevier |
Adrian Ho | Director of Digital Scholarship, University of Kentucky Libraries |
Adyam Ghebre | Director of Outreach, Authorea |
Agathe Gebert | Open Access Repository Manager at GESIS Leibniz-Institute for Social Sciences |
Aimee Nixon | Head of Open Access Publishing, Emerald |
Alberto Pepe | Co-founder, Authorea |
Alex Wade | Principle Program Manager, Microsoft academic portals |
Alexander Garcia Castro | Senior Research Officer, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid |
Alexander Kohls | SCOAP3 Operation Manager, CERN |
Ali Andalibi | Associate Dean of Research, Science, George Mason University |
Alice Meadows | Director of Community Engagement and Support, ORCID |
Alicia Wise | Director of Access and Policy, Elsevier |
Alison Mudditt | Director, University of California Press |
Amy Brand | Director, MIT Press |
Amy Buckland | Chair, Research and Scholarly Environment committee, ACRL |
Amy Jessen-Marshall | Vice President for Integrative Liberal Learning and the Global Commons, Association of American Colleges and Universities |
Amy Nurnberger | Research Data Manager, Columbia University |
Andrew Plume | Associate Director, Scientometrics & Market Analysis in Research & Academic Relations, Elsevier |
Andrew Sallans | Partnerships and Collaborations Manger, Center for Open Science (COS) |
Andrew Tein | Vice President, International Government Partnerships, Wiley |
Angela Cochran | Associate Publisher, American Society of Civil Engineers |
Ann Gabriel | Vice President Global Academic & Research Relations, Elsevier |
Ann Michael | President, Delta Think |
Ann Riley | President, ACRL |
Ann Thornton | Vice Provost & University Librarian, Columbia University |
Anne Kenney | University Librarian, Cornell University |
Annie Johnson | Library Publishing and Scholarly Communications Specialist, Temple University |
Anthony Watkinson | Principal Consultant CIBER Research |
College of Professional Studies, MPS publishing program, GWU | |
Audrey McCulloch | Chief Executive, ALPSP |
Barbara DeFelice | Program Director, Scholarly Communication, Copyright, and Publishing, Dartmouth |
Barbara Gordon | Executive Director, American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology |
Copyright & Scholarly Agreements Specialist, GWU | |
Becky Clark | Director of Publishing, Library of Congress |
Belinda Huang | Executive Director, National Postdoctoral Association |
Betsy Wilson | Vice Provost for Digital Initiatives and Dean of University Libraries, University of Washington |
Bev Acreman | Commercial Director, F1000 |
Bhanu Neupane | Program Manager, UNESCO |
Bill Hubbard | Deputy Head Of Scholarly Communications Support, JISC |
Bobby Schnabel | CEO, Association of Computing Machinery |
Brad Fenwick | Senior Vice President, Elsevier |
Brett Bobley | CIO, National Endowment for the Humanities |
Brian Selzer | Assistant Director of Publications, American Public Health Association |
Brianna Schofield | Executive Director, Authors Alliance |
Brooks Hanson | Director, Publications, AGU |
Bryan Alexander | President, Bryan Alexander Consulting |
Bryan Vickery | Director, Cogent OA |
Bryn Geffert | Librarian of the College, Amherst College |
Carlos H. Brito Cruz | Science Director, Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) |
Carol Hunter | Interim Vice Provost for University Libraries and University Librarian, UNC-Chapel Hill |
Carol Mandel | Dean, Division of Libraries, New York University |
Caroline Black | Associate Publishing Director, BioMed Central |
Caroline Sutton | Head of Open Scholarship Development, Taylor & Francis |
Carrie Calder | Director, Business Operations & Policy, Springer Nature |
Catherine Mitchell | President, Library Publishing Coalition and Director, Access & Publishing Group, California Digital Library |
Catherine Murray-Rust | Dean of Libraries & Vice Provost for Academic Effectiveness, Georgia Tech |
Cathy Wojewodzki | Librarian & Scholarly Communication Officer, University of Delaware |
Catriona MacCallum | Advocacy Director, PLOS |
Celeste Feather | Senior Director of Licensing and Strategic Partnerships, Lyrasis |
Cheryl Ball | Director, Digital Publishing Institute, West Virginia University |
Chris Keene | Head of Library and Scholarly Futures, JISC |
Christie Aschwanden | Lead Science Writer, FiveThirtyEight |
Christina Drummond | Director of Strategic Initiatives, Educopia Institute |
Christine Borgman | Distinguished Professor, UCLA |
Christine Casey | Editor, MMWR Serials, US Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) |
Christine Stamison | Director, NorthEast Research Libraries Consortium (NERL) |
Christopher Erdmann | Chief Strategist for Research Collaboration, NCSU Libraries |
Christopher Thomas | Administrator, Defense Technical Information Center |
Claire Blin | Director of Libraries, University of Pierre and Marie Curie |
Claudia Holland | Head, Scholarly Communication and Copyright, GMU |
Colleen Campbell | Director, OA2020 Partner Development, Max Planck Digital Library |
Colleen Cook | Dean of Libraries, McGill University |
Concetta Seminara | Editorial Director, Social Science & Humanities Journals, Routledge/Taylor & Francis |
Crispin Taylor | CEO, American Society of Plant Biologists |
Daisy Selematsela | Executive Director, Knowledge Management Corporate, National Research Foundation (South Africa) |
Dan Cohen | Executive Director, Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) |
Dan Morgan | Digital Science Publisher, University of California Press |
Danny Kingsley | Head, Office of Scholarly Communication, University of Cambridge |
Dave McColgin | UX Director, Artefact |
Dave Ross | Executive Director, Open Access, SAGE Publishing |
Executive Director, National Science Teachers Association | |
David Hansen | Director of Copyright & Scholarly Communications, Duke |
David Mellor | Project Manager, Journal and Funder Initiatives, Center for Open Science |
David Wojick | Government policy analyst |
Deborah Jakubs | University Librarian & Vice Provost for Library Affairs, Duke |
Deborah Kahn | Publishing Director, Medicine and Open Access, Taylor & Francis |
Debra Kurtz | CEO, DuraSpace |
Dee Magnoni | Research Library Director, Los Alamos National Lab |
Deni Auclair | CFO/Sr. Analyst at Delta Think |
Denise Stephens | University Librarian, UC Santa Barbara |
Diane Graves | Board member, EDUCAUSE; Assistant VP of Academic Affairs and University Librarian, Trinity University |
Diane Scott-Lichter | Sr. Vice President, Publishing, American College of Physicians; Chair, AAP/PSP Executive Committee |
Diane Sullenberger | Executive Editor, PNAS, National Academy of Sciences |
Dick Wilder | Associate General Counsel, Gates Foundation |
Donald Guy | Manager, Research Collaboration & Library Services, Sandia National Labs |
Donna Scheeder | President, IFLA |
Elizabeth Marincola | Former CEO, PLOS |
Elizabteth Kirk | Associate Librarian for Information Resources, Dartmouth |
Emily McElroy | Director, University of Nebraska Medical Center Library |
Emma Wilson | Director of Publishing, Royal Society of Chemistry |
Eric Archambault | President and CEO, 1science |
Eric Brown | Division Leader, Explosive Science and Shock Physics, Los Alamos National Laboratory |
Eric Massant | Senior Director, Government & Industry Affairs, RELX Group |
Eric Olson | Outreach coordinator, PressForward Institute |
Frances Pinter | Founder, Knowledge Unlatched |
Franciso Valdes Ugalde | Mexico Director, FLACSO |
Frank Sander | Director of the Max Planck Digital Library, Max-Planck-Society, Germany |
Gail McMillan | Director of Scholarly Communication, Virginia Tech Libraries |
Gary Evoniuk | Director of Publication Practices, GSK |
Gary Miller | Associate Dean for Research, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University |
Gemma Hersh | OA leader, RELX |
Geneva Henry | Dean of Libraries and Academic Innovation, George Washington University |
Geoff Bilder | Director of Strategic Initiatvies, Crossref |
Geraldine Clement-Stoneham | Knowledge and Information Manager, Medical Research Council, RCUK |
Ginger Strader | Director, Smithsonian Scholarly Press |
Glenorchy Campbell | Managing Director, BMJ North America |
Grace Xiao | Co-Founder and President, Kynplex |
Gregg Gordon | President, SSRN |
Gregory Eow | Associate Director for Collections, MIT |
H. Carton Rogers | Vice Provost for Libraries, University of Pennsylvania |
Harriette Hemmasi | Dean of Libraries, Brown University |
Helena Asamoah-Hassan | Executive Director, African Library and Information Associations (AfLIA) |
Hillary Corbett | Director of Scholarly Communication & Digital Publishing, Northeastern University |
Holly Falk-Krzesinski | Vice President for Strategic Alliances in Global Academic Relations, Elsevier |
Howard Gadlin | Ombudsman, NIH |
Howard Ratner | Executive Director, CHORUS |
In McCann | Senior Manager, Corporate Information Management, Sandia National Labs |
Ingrid Parent | University Librarian, University of British Columbia |
Ivan Oransky | Ivan Oransky, Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today, and Co-Founder, Retraction Watch |
Ivy Anderson | Director of Collections, California Digital Library |
Jack Schultz | Director, Christopher Bond Life Sciences Center |
Jake Orlowitz | Head of The Wikipedia Library, Wikimedia Foundation |
James Butcher | Publishing Director, Nature Journals |
James Duderstadt | Chair, Policy and Global Affairs Committee |
James Hilton | University Librarian, Dean of Libraries, Vice provost for digital education and innovation, University of Michigan |
James Mullins | Dean of Libraries, Purdue University |
James Taylor | Deputy Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer, American Physical Society |
Jamie Vernon | Editor-in-Chief, American Scientist |
Jane McAuliffe | Director, National and International Outreach |
Jason Hoyt | CEO, PeerJ |
Jason Schmitt | Associate Professor Communication & Media, Clarkson University |
Jason Steinhauer | Director, Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest, Villanova University |
Jean-Gabriel Bankier | President and CEO, bePress |
Jeff Mackie-Mason | University Librarian and Chief Digital Scholarship Officer, UC Berkeley |
Jeff Murray | Deputy Director in Family Health, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation |
Jeff Tsao | Distinguished Member of Technical Staff, Sandia |
Jennifer Hansen | Senior Officer, Knowledge & Research Services at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation |
Jennifer Howard | Former senior reporter, Chronicle of Higher Education |
Jennifer Pesanelli | Deputy Executive Director of Operations and Director of Publication at FASEB |
Jerry Sheehan | Assistant Director for Scientific Data and Information, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) |
Jessica Clemons | Associate University Librarian for Research Education and Outreach, SUNY-Buffalo |
Jessica Sebeok | Associate Vice President for Policy, Association of American Universities |
Jie Xu | Associate Professor, Deputy Director of Publishing Study, School of Information Management, Wuhan University, China |
Jill Mortali | Director, Office of Sponsored Projects, Dartmouth College |
Jim O'Donnell | University Librarian, ASU |
Jo McShea | VP & Lead Analyst, STM, Outsell, Inc |
Joan Frye | Acting Deputy Office Head, Office of Integrative Activities, National Science Foundation |
Joan Lippincott | Associate Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information |
Joann Delenick | Scientist, biocurator |
Joanna Martin | CENDI Alternate, Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI), US Department of Energy |
John Dove | Library and publishing consultant |
John Inglis | Executive Director and Publisher, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press and Co-Founder, bioRxiv |
John Mareda | Manager, Knowledge Systems & Analytics, Sandia National Labs |
John Paul Christy | Director of Public Programs, American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) |
John Warren | Head, Mason Publishing Group, George Mason University |
John Willinsky | OA pioneer, PKP founder, and professor, Stanford U. |
John Zenelis | Dean of Libraries and University Librarian, George Mason University |
Jon Cawthorne | Dean of Libraries, West Virginia University |
Jonas Rabinovitch | Senior Advisor, Public Administration Modernization, United Nations Secretariat UNDESA |
Jose Roberto F. Arruda | Special Advisor to the Scientific Director, FAPESP |
Joshua Greenberg | Program director, Sloan Foundation |
Joshua Nicholson | CEO and Co-Founder, The Winnower |
Joyce Backus | Associate Director, National Library of Medicine |
Joyce Ogburn | Digital Strategies and Partnerships Librarian, Appalachian State University |
Judy Luther | President, Informed Strategies |
Julie Hannaford | Deputy Chief Librarian, University of Toronto |
Kaitlin Thaney | Director, Mozilla Science Lab |
Kamran Naim | Lead Researcher, Open Access Cooperative Study, Stanford University; Strategic Development Manager, Annual Reviews |
Karin Trainer | Former University Librarian, Princeton |
Karina Ansolabehere | Human rights and democracy expert |
Karla Cosgriff | Director of Advancement, Free the Science, The Electrochemical Society |
Kathleen Fitzpatrick | Associate Executive Director and Director of Scholarly Communication, Modern Language Association |
Kathleen Keane | Director, Johns Hopkins University Press |
Kathleen Shearer | Executive Director, COAR |
Keith Webster | Dean of Libraries, Carnegie-Mellon University |
Keith Yamamoto | Vice Chancellor for Science Policy and Strategy, Vice Dean for Research, School of Medicine, and Professor of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California San Francisco |
Kevin Bradley | President, US Journals, Taylor & Francis |
Kevin Davies | Vice President for Business Development, American Chemical Society |
Kim Barrett | Distinguished Professor of Medicine and Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology |
Kostas Repanas | Head, Office of Science Communication and Archives, A*STAR |
Kris Bishop | Product Manager, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)/Science Family of Journals |
Krista Cox | Director of Public Policy Initiatives, ARL |
Lacey Earle | Vice President of Business Development, Cabell's |
Lars Bjørnshauge | Founder and Managing Director, DOAJ |
Laura Helmuth | 2016 president, National Association of Science Writers |
Laura Lindenfeld Sher | Director, Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science |
Laure Haak | Executive Director, ORCID |
Laurie Goodman | Editor in Chief, GigaScience |
Lee Cheng Ean | University Librarian, National University of Singapore |
Leslie Reynolds | Senior Associate Dean of Libraries, University of Colorado Boulder |
Lia Zambetti | Assistant Head, Office of Science Communication and Archives, A*STAR |
Lisa Colledge | Director of Research Metrics, RELX Group |
Lisa Macklin | Director, Scholarly Communications Office, Emory University |
Lisa Spiro | Executive Director, Digital Scholarship Services, Rice University |
Loet Leydesdorff | Professor, Dynamics of Scientific Communication and Technological Innovation, University of Amsterdam |
Lorcan Dempsey | Vice President of Membership & Research and Chief Strategist, OCLC |
Lorena Barba | Associate Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, GWU |
Lorraine Haricombe | Vice Provost and Director, University of Texas Libraries |
Louise Page | Publisher, PLOS |
Maggie Johnson | Director of Education and University Relations, Google |
Mangala Sharma | Program Director, Office of International Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation |
Marcus Banks | Head, Blaisdell Medical Library, UC Davis |
Margaret Winker | Secretary, World Association of Medical Editors |
Mariette DiChristina | Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American |
Marilyn Billings | Scholarly Communication & Special Initiatives Librarian, UMass Amherst |
Mark Edington | Director, Amherst College Press, and Publisher, Lever Press |
Mark Newton | Director of Digital Scholarship, Columbia University Libraries |
Mark Parsons | Secretary General, Research Data Alliance |
Mark Ware | Director, Mark Ware Consulting |
Martin Hicks | Board member, Beilstein Institut |
Martin Kalfatovic | Associate Director, Smithsonian Libraries |
Martin Paul Eve | Professor of Literature, Technology and Publishing, University of London |
Martin Sugden | Head of Open Access Marketing, Taylor & Francis |
Martin Wybourne | Vice Provost for Research, Dartmouth College |
Mary Augusta Thomas | Deputy Director, Smithsonian Libraries |
Mary Ellen Davis | Executive Director, American Library Association |
Mary Woolley | President, Research!America |
Mary Yess | Deputy Executive Director & Chief Content Officer, The Electrochemical Society |
Maryann Martone | Former Executive Director, Force 11 |
Matt Spitzer | Community Manager, Center for Open Science |
Matthew Salter | Publisher, American Physical Society |
Maura Marx | Deputy Director for Library Services, Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) |
Medha Devare | Data and Knowledge Manager, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) |
Meg Buzzi | Director, Project OPUS, UCLA |
Meg Oakley | Director of Copyright & Scholarly Communications, Georgetown |
Megan Wacha | Scholarly Communications Librarian, City University of New York |
Mel DeSart | Head, Engineering Library and Head, Branch Libraries, University of Washington |
Melanie Dolechek | Executive Director, Society for Scholarly Publishing |
Melanie Schlosser | Scholarly Communications Program Leader, Educopia |
Melinda Kenneway | Executive Director, Kudos |
Melissa Cragin | Staff Associate, National Science Foundation |
Meredith Morovati | Executive Director, Dryad |
Micah Vandegrift | Director of Digital Scholarship, Florida State University |
Michael Eisen | Co-Founder, PLOS and Professor of Genetics, Genomics and Development, U Cal Berkeley |
Michael Forster | Managing Director, IEEE Publications |
Michael Roy | Dean of the Library, Middlebury College |
Michael Van Woert | Executive Officer, National Science Board |
Michael Wolfe | Executive Director, Authors Alliance |
Michael Zentner | Senior Research Scientist, Network for Computational Nanotechnology, Purdue |
Michele Woods | Director of the Copyright Law Division, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) |
Associate General Counsel, George Washington University | |
Mike Furlough | Executive Director, Hathi Trust |
Mike Taylor | Software Engineer, and Research Associate at the University of Bristol |
Director of Research Services, George Washington University | |
Moshe Pritsker | Co-founder, CEO, and Editor-in-Chief, JoVE |
Najko Janh | Scholarly Communication Analyst, University of Gottingen |
Nancy Davenport | University Librarian, American University |
Nancy Gwinn | Director, Smithsonian Institution Libraries |
Nancy Rodnan | Senior Director, Publications American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology |
Nancy Weiss | General Counsel, US IMLS |
Narda Jones | Legislative Counsel, US Senate |
Natalia Manola | Managing Director, OpenAIRE |
Neil Jacobs | Head of Scholarly Communications Support, JISC |
Nick Lindsay | Journals Director, The MIT Press |
Nina Collins | Scholarly Publishing Specialist, Purdue University |
Norbert Lossau | Vice-President, University of Göttingen |
Pablo Gentili | Brazil Director and member, Higher Council, CLACSO |
Patrick Herron | Senior Research Scientist for Information Science + Studies, Duke University |
Patty Baskin | President, Council of Science Editors (CSE) and Executive Editor, Neurology Journals |
Paul Ayris | Director of Library Services and CEO of UCL Press, University College of London, and Co-Chair of the League of European Research Universities (LERU) CIO Community |
Paul Groth | Disruptive Technology Director, Elsevier Labs |
Paul Murphy | Director of RAND Press |
Paul Peters | CEO, Hindawi |
Paul Royster | Coordinator of Scholarly Communications, University of Nebraska |
Pedro Cote Baraibar | Communications Coordinator, FLACSO-Mexico |
Peter Berkery | Executive Director, Association of American University Presses |
Peter Brantley | Director of Online Strategy, University of California Davis Library |
Peter Potter | Director, Publishing Strategy, Virginia Tech |
Phil Carpenter | Executive Vice President, Research, Wiley |
Phil Kim | Co-founder and COO, 20 Million Minds Foundation |
Philip Bourne | Chair of Data Science, Director of the Data Science Institute (DSI) and Professor in the Department of Biomedical Engineering (BME), University of Virginia |
Pippa Smart | Editor, "Learned Publishing" and publishing consultant |
Pollyanne Frantz | Executive Director, Grants Resource Center |
Prue Adler | Associate Executive Director, Federal Relations and Information Policy |
Rachael Samberg | Scholarly Communication Officer, UC Berkeley |
Rachel Burley | Publishing Director, Biomed Central and Springer Open |
Rachel Dresbeck | Immediate Past President, National Organization of Research Development Professionals/Director, Research Development, Oregon Health & Science University |
Ralf Schimmer | Head of Scientific Information Provision, Max Planck Digital Library |
Ramesh Gaur | University Librarian, Jawaharlal Nehru University |
Rebecca Kennison | Principal, K|N Consultants/Open Access Network |
Remi Gaillard | Head of Collection Development Department, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC) |
Renaud Fabre | Director, Scientific and Technical Information Directorate (DIST) |
Richard Gedye | Director of Outreach Programmes, STM and Publisher Coordinator, Research4Life |
Richard Ovenden | Bodley’s Librarian, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford |
Richard Price | Founder and CEO, academia.edu |
Richard Wellons | Program Manager, Grants Resource Center, AASCU |
Richard Wilder | Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Associate General Counsel |
Rick Anderson | Associate Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah |
Rikk Mulligan | Program Officer for Scholarly Publishing, Association of Research Libraries (ARL) |
Rita Scheman | Director of Publicatons and Executive Editor, American Physiological Society |
Rob Johnson | Director, Research Consulting |
Robert Cartolano | Vice President for Digital Programs and Technology Services |
Robert Kiley | Head of Digital Services, Wellcome Trust |
Robert Miller | CEO and Executive Director, Lyrasis |
Robin Champieux | Scholarly librarian and founder of ARCS |
Robin Staffin | Director for Basic Research, US Department of Defense |
Roger Schonfeld | Director, Library and Scholarly Communication Program, Ithaka S+R |
Roxanne Missingham | University Librarian, Australian National University, and Deputy Chair, Australian Open Access Support Group (AOASG) |
Roy Kaufman | Managing Director, New Ventures, CCC |
Ryan Merkley | CEO, Creative Commons |
Sally Rumsey | Head of Scholarly Communication and Research Data Management, Oxford |
Salvatore Mele | Director of Open Access, CERN |
Sam Burridge | Managing Director of Open Research, SpringerNature |
Sarah Michalak | Associate Provost for University Libraries and University Librarian, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (UNC) |
Sarah Pritchard | Dean of Libraries, Northwestern University |
Scott Delman | Director of publishing, ACM |
Scott Plutchak | Director of Digital Data Curation Strategies, UAB |
Scott Waugh | Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, UCLA |
Seth Denbo | Director of Scholarly Communication, American Historical Association |
Sharon Farb | Associate University Librarian and Chief Content Strategist, UCLA |
Sheree Crosby | VP of Global Marketing, Cabell's |
Art & Design Librarian, GWU | |
Sindy Escobar Alvarez | Senior Program Officer for Medical Research, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation |
Sioux Cumming | Programme Manager Journals Online, INASP |
Stacy Konikel | Director of Research and Education, Altmetric.com |
Stephanie Diment | Director of Open Access, Wiley |
Stephanie Fulton | Executive Director, Research Medical Library, Univ of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center |
Stephanie Orfano | Head of Scholarly Communications, University of Toronto |
Stephanie Westcott | Research Assistant Professor, Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, George Mason University |
Steve Fiore | Professor, University of Central Florida |
Steve Sayre | Director of Publishing, Ecological Society of America |
Steven Hall | Managing Director, IOP |
Steven Hill | Head of Rearch Policy, Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) |
Stuart Buck | Vice President of Research Integrity, John and Laura Arnold Foundation |
Stuart Taylor | Publishing Director, The Royal Society |
Susan Dentzer | Senior health policy advisor, RWJ Foundation and President and CEO of NEHI (Network for Excellence in Health Innovation) |
Susan Fitzpatrick | President, James S. McDonnell Foundation |
Susan Haigh | Executive Director, Canadian Associate of Research Libraries |
Susan Murray | Director, African Journals Online |
Susan Skomal | CEO, BioOne |
Susan Veldsman | Director of Publishing, Academy of Science of South Africa |
Suzie Allard | Associate Dean for Research and Director, Center for Information & Communication Studies, U of Tennessee |
Talmesha Richards | Chief Academic and Diversity Officer, STEMConnector |
Tee Guidotti | President, Sigma Xi |
Terri Fishel | Library Director, Macalester College |
Terry Ehling | Associate Director / Project MUSE (Johns Hopkins University Press) |
Timothy Vollmer | Public Policy Manager, Creative Commons |
Toby Green | Head of Publishing, OECD |
Todd Carpenter | Executive Director, NISO |
Tom Reller | Vice President Global Corporate Relations, Elsevier |
Tony Peatfield | Director of Corporate Affairs, Medical Research Council, RCUK |
Tony Roche | Publishing Director, Emerald Group Publishing Limited |
Trevor Dawes | Vice Provost for Libraries and Museums, University of Delaware |
Trevor Owens | Senior Program Officer, Institute of Museum and Library Services |
Tyler Walters | Dean, University Libraries, Virginia Tech, and Director, Shared Access Research Ecosystem (SHARE) |
Vickie Williams | CEO, Research Media |
Vicky Gardner | Open Access Publisher, Taylor & Francis |
Vicky Williams | CEO, Research Media |
Victoria Reich | Executive Director LOCKSS Program, Stanford University |
Vidya Krishnamurthy | Director of Communications, Hewlett Foundation |
Virginia Barbour | Executive Director, Australasian Open Access Strategy Group |
Vivian Siegel | Lecturer, MIT and Senior Editorial Advisor, Bio-protocol |
Wayne Kaplan | Executive Vice President for Research, Technion - Israel Institute of Technology |
Wendy Lougee | University Librarian, University of Minnesota |
Will Schweitzer | Director, Product, American Association for the Advancement of Science/Science Family of Journals |
William Gunn | Director of Scholarly Communications, Elsevier |
William Simpson | Associate Librarian and Institutional Repository Librarian, University of Delaware |
Williams Nwagwu | Head of Knowledge Management, Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA) |
Wim Van der Stelt | EVP Strategic Relations, SpringerNature |
Winston Tabb | Dean of University Libraries & Museums |
Wolfram Horstmann | University Librarian, University of Gottingen |
Xiaolin Zhang | Director, National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) |
richard...@cantab.net
Anthony Watkinson
I just do not accept this. Yet again I point out that learned societies and professional associations represent researchers of anyone does. Commercial publishers and the larger learned bodies publish for learned societies. I have negotiated on both sides of the fence. There is agreement or there would not be contracts. There are of course as many editors as there are journals and indeed more. They work with publishers. They usually agree.
Anthony
Glenn Hampson
Mike---I didn’t mean to disregard your creative metaphor here. I was just trying to keep my previous reply on point. Suppose you looked at all the car models and decided what you really, truly wanted was a self-driving car? Would you ask your Honda dealer for this, or would you just settle for what’s available? And what if Honda did you one better and was able to create a car that was not only self-driving but amphibious as well? And what if only Honda and a few other major car companies were in a position to develop a car of the future like this? Should they be part of the process that helps think through how to make this possible so it’s not just a lot of sci-fi wishful thinking? Military planners do this all the time by the way---they need capable experts and companies to design and build the next generation of goods and have a close working relationship with these companies and experts. To me anyway, this “compromised outcome” you mention has been precisely because all the stakeholders in this community have not talked to each other but instead are each pursuing their own agenda based on their own understanding of the issues and problems in scholarly communication. This community is stronger, more creative, more realistic, and more capable working together. My $0.02.
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 2:50 AM
To: Anthony Watkinson <anthony....@btinternet.com>
Cc: Richard Poynder <richard...@cantab.net>; Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
My own position, of course -- not speaking for Richard.
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
Glenn Hampson
Hi Mike,
I apologize if this is piling on (and I apologize to David as well for wasting his time with more metaphors) but a few other interesting and hopefully helpful reactions to your car metaphor came up in a different off-line conversation. I’d like to share these here with names removed---I really do think they’re worth sharing:
- There are those in this community who view their relationships with publishers as entirely transactional. You want a service, and you want it on your terms. This is neither right nor wrong---just an observation.
- “We have been discussing systems, not pieces.” Are we occupied with trying to buy cars, or are we trying to redesign the entire transportation system? If the latter, this requires “making use of the expertise and experience of everyone with a stake in it – not just the drivers and their passengers, but the people building cars & busses & trains & planes and the regulatory agencies, and the municipal governments, and the businesses trying to get goods from place to place and on and on. And all of them will have their own individual interests that have to be taken into account in moving forward.”
- Finally, there are those in this community who want flying cars but seem to be opposed to talking with anyone “who actually has the expertise and resources to build such a thing for fear that they might make money off of it.”
There’s more, but this is the executive summary.
Cheers,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org]
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 10:02 AM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
Mike---I didn’t mean to disregard your creative metaphor here. I was just trying to keep my previous reply on point. Suppose you looked at all the car models and decided what you really, truly wanted was a self-driving car? Would you ask your Honda dealer for this, or would you just settle for what’s available? And what if Honda did you one better and was able to create a car that was not only self-driving but amphibious as well? And what if only Honda and a few other major car companies were in a position to develop a car of the future like this? Should they be part of the process that helps think through how to make this possible so it’s not just a lot of sci-fi wishful thinking? Military planners do this all the time by the way---they need capable experts and companies to design and build the next generation of goods and have a close working relationship with these companies and experts. To me anyway, this “compromised outcome” you mention has been precisely because all the stakeholders in this community have not talked to each other but instead are each pursuing their own agenda based on their own understanding of the issues and problems in scholarly communication. This community is stronger, more creative, more realistic, and more capable working together. My $0.02.
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike Taylor
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2017 2:50 AM
To: Anthony Watkinson <anthony....@btinternet.com>
Cc: Richard Poynder <richard...@cantab.net>; Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
My own position, of course -- not speaking for Richard.
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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.