--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CH0PR01MB6875862818460C17A009B9CED6CC9%40CH0PR01MB6875.prod.exchangelabs.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/1df0375f-7b32-4287-8927-3576c4d72b47%40Spark.
This group’s 2018 critique of Plan S (https://bit.ly/3t09hvdpretty) put the APC “playwall” concern in all caps. This wasn’t the only group expressing these concerns, of course, but we made it pretty clear that people in the know (that’s you) had concerns. Today, everyone (including Plan S signatories) has reservations about APCs. Still, the OA approaches we’re pursuing (through Plan S, TA’s, major publishers, etc.) remain heavily dependent on APCs. It’s a curious race down a dead-end alley. In the meantime, other interesting models continue to evolve (see the latest C&E brief for some cool examples: Subscribe to The Brief | Clarke & Esposito (ce-strategy.com)).
To briefly comment on your two other discussion points, Caroline:
Best regards to you all---I hope your summer has been relaxing and rewarding.
Sincerely,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CH0PR01MB6875CE1BCEBC156AA2798594D6CC9%40CH0PR01MB6875.prod.exchangelabs.com.
On 1 Sep 2021, at 02:07, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
This group’s 2018 critique of Plan S (https://bit.ly/3t09hvdpretty) put the APC “playwall” concern in all caps. This wasn’t the only group expressing these concerns, of course, but we made it pretty clear that people in the know (that’s you) had concerns. Today, everyone (including Plan S signatories) has reservations about APCs. Still, the OA approaches we’re pursuing (through Plan S, TA’s, major publishers, etc.) remain heavily dependent on APCs. It’s a curious race down a dead-end alley. In the meantime, other interesting models continue to evolve (see the latest C&E brief for some cool examples: Subscribe to The Brief | Clarke & Esposito (ce-strategy.com)).To briefly comment on your two other discussion points, Caroline:
- “It would appear we have done a very poor job of explaining the costs associated with publishing.” Maybe? Kent Anderson has been a tireless explainer of this issue. But, this discussion space has been so polarized for so long that anyone who “defends” publishing costs has been vilified as being immoral, anti-science, on the take, etc.---we’ve truly heard it all. Ideally, there should be room to rationally assess what’s working in publishing, what isn’t, where we can make efficiency improvements, etc.---OSI has hopefully served a purpose in this regard. I think the acrimony has calmed down somewhat over the last five years or so, but there is still a lot of inertia with major funders and policy organizations who believe any solution that allows profit, commercial participation, or copyright is a failure. And,
- “What have we learned from the COVID experience that we can bring to this discussion?” Where you stand on this depends on where you sit. Some will note that rapid sharing of COVID research is how research should operate; others will note that rapid sharing of badCOVID research is how research should not operate. Personally, I think we have been reminded by COVID (because rapid sharing wasn’t invented last year) that there is a great deal of potential here. And that’s about it. Did we learn that pharma companies will invest billions in desperately needed research and then give away their data and patents? No. Researchers have and will continue to collaborate at the margins in ways that help science and at the same time serve their best interests (personal and institutional). I think we should look for ways to enhance these various engagement pathways without assuming (incorrectly) that all such pathways involve OA, APCs, TA’s, etc.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/00d801d79e82%243c3544a0%24b49fcde0%24%40nationalscience.org.
On Aug 31, 2021, at 5:40 PM, Danny Kingsley <da...@dannykingsley.com> wrote:
Oh honestly. This is just bloody gaslighting.
I wrote a debate piece with my colleague in 2015 (yes a long time ago) called: “Open access: the whipping boy for problems in scholarly publication” https://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol37/iss1/14/
The journal then asked for rebuttals, where three of the four rebuttals stated that "what was needed was an analysis of the scholarly publishing system" (conveniently ignoring the literally decades of work in this space). Our response to the rebuttals https://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol37/iss1/20/I also presented on this at the 2016 RLUK conference https://www.slideshare.net/DannyKingsley/the-value-of-embracing-unknown-unknownsWe just go around in circles.Danny
On 1 Sep 2021, at 02:07, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
This group’s 2018 critique of Plan S (https://bit.ly/3t09hvdpretty) put the APC “playwall” concern in all caps. This wasn’t the only group expressing these concerns, of course, but we made it pretty clear that people in the know (that’s you) had concerns. Today, everyone (including Plan S signatories) has reservations about APCs. Still, the OA approaches we’re pursuing (through Plan S, TA’s, major publishers, etc.) remain heavily dependent on APCs. It’s a curious race down a dead-end alley. In the meantime, other interesting models continue to evolve (see the latest C&E brief for some cool examples: Subscribe to The Brief | Clarke & Esposito (ce-strategy.com)).To briefly comment on your two other discussion points, Caroline:
- “It would appear we have done a very poor job of explaining the costs associated with publishing.” Maybe? Kent Anderson has been a tireless explainer of this issue. But, this discussion space has been so polarized for so long that anyone who “defends” publishing costs has been vilified as being immoral, anti-science, on the take, etc.---we’ve truly heard it all. Ideally, there should be room to rationally assess what’s working in publishing, what isn’t, where we can make efficiency improvements, etc.---OSI has hopefully served a purpose in this regard. I think the acrimony has calmed down somewhat over the last five years or so, but there is still a lot of inertia with major funders and policy organizations who believe any solution that allows profit, commercial participation, or copyright is a failure. And,
- “What have we learned from the COVID experience that we can bring to this discussion?” Where you stand on this depends on where you sit. Some will note that rapid sharing of COVID research is how research should operate; others will note that rapid sharing of badCOVID research is how research should not operate. Personally, I think we have been reminded by COVID (because rapid sharing wasn’t invented last year) that there is a great deal of potential here. And that’s about it. Did we learn that pharma companies will invest billions in desperately needed research and then give away their data and patents? No. Researchers have and will continue to collaborate at the margins in ways that help science and at the same time serve their best interests (personal and institutional). I think we should look for ways to enhance these various engagement pathways without assuming (incorrectly) that all such pathways involve OA, APCs, TA’s, etc.
Best regards to you all---I hope your summer has been relaxing and rewarding.Sincerely,GlennGlenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/8CD81E50-63B6-41F5-8101-2D0948A22A97%40dannykingsley.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/4E48AB13-834C-4BDA-86FB-AACFA0E87792%40appstate.edu.