Hi Folks,
UNESCO has just approved its draft policy for open science. This policy will be voted on by the full UN General Assembly in October. While there is a lot to dislike in this policy---unnecessary specificity, factual errors, ideological distractions, etc.---it is also important to, from a big picture view, recognize the importance of officially encouraging member states to consider open science and to provide a general framework for doing so. I think we can applaud the effort and take issue with some of the details at the same time---we’ll continue working through channels with UNESCO and member states to contribute to the specific open actions that may now be able to emerge from this consensus.
Best regards,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/008301d7468b%24e7b9a220%24b72ce660%24%40nationalscience.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CAAndGtpc0ZkLux2Fs30QOsvKEJzo%2BRh6p9VE8%2Bf8mzKby0F2vA%40mail.gmail.com.
Not yet---I’ll circulate the cleaned up copy as soon as it’s available. The general emphasis is much like the attached version that this assembly was editing (starting from page 8 of the pdf). More detail was added and words were changed, but the structure and points are generally the same as in the attached.
From: Bryan Alexander <bryan.a...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2021 12:01 PM
To: Abel L. Packer <abel....@gmail.com>
Cc: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: UNESCO passes new open science "soft law"
Is the text available on the web?
On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 2:09 PM Abel L. Packer <abel....@gmail.com> wrote:
Gkenn
I fully agree with you that the UNESCO draft recommendation on Open Science is important (I would say very important) and an (extraordinary collective highly democratic) effort to be applauded (as it contributes to advance science and scientific knowledge as a global public good).
As an observer, you did very good comments and contributions to the discussion!
Best. Abel
Abel L Packer
On Tue, May 11, 2021, 14:34 Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
Hi Folks,
UNESCO has just approved its draft policy for open science. This policy will be voted on by the full UN General Assembly in October. While there is a lot to dislike in this policy---unnecessary specificity, factual errors, ideological distractions, etc.---it is also important to, from a big picture view, recognize the importance of officially encouraging member states to consider open science and to provide a general framework for doing so. I think we can applaud the effort and take issue with some of the details at the same time---we’ll continue working through channels with UNESCO and member states to contribute to the specific open actions that may now be able to emerge from this consensus.
Best regards,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
Yeah---there’s a lot of that in the next 10 pages too 😊. The final draft is a little cleaner but that fact is amazing---done by translators who were working seven hour shifts over four days trying to simultaneously edit English and French versions on the fly, often writing based on a translations of what was being said, as the chair navigated through input using parliamentary procedure (so each amendment had to be typed on out screen, edited based on feedback, then voted on and inserted into the original text in the proper location). This was a Zoom meeting on steroids.
--
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/b7e911de-27ee-46cf-88ce-436d7fe7c9a9n%40googlegroups.com.
This forthcoming webinar may be of interest.
"Open Science to leave no one behind"
27 May 2021 15:00 CEST
Registration at : http://indico.ictp.it/event/9668/
Speakers:
Dr. Ana Persic, Science Policy and Partnerships, UNESCO
Dr. Rania M.H. Baleela, Pathogen Molecular Biologist and Open Access advocate, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan
Abstract:
“To ensure that Science truly benefits the people and the planet and leaves no one behind, there is need to transform the entire scientific process. Open Science is a movement aiming to make science more open, accessible, efficient, democratic, and transparent.” (source UNESCO, 2020)
In the first part of the seminar we will learn from Dr.Ana Persic how UNESCO is taking the lead in building a global consensus on Open Science, including a common definition, a sheared set of values and proposals for action. In the second part Dr.Rania M.H. Baleela of University of Khartoum (Sudan) will present the challenges faced by researchers in less developed countries in making the Open Science principles an equal opportunity and a global reality.
Richard
--
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/osi2016-25/008301d7468b%24e7b9a220%24b72ce660%24%40nationalscience.org.
Thanks Richard. At the same time, UNESCO has been promoting (and will continue to do so---big plans are underway) the OSI version of an open future where inclusiveness involves understanding and working together, and also not treating openness as a bunch of separate concerns (open access + open data + open source, etc.). It will be interesting to see how this is received---which version will resonate more. Regarding the other version of open (the one just approved) where science is supposed to become a global public good and ownership, competition, and prestige will somehow fade into the past….well, look no further than Caroline’s latest paper to see how this dynamic isn’t going away any time soon:
Caroline S. Wagner, Lin Zhang,, Koen Jonkers, & Loet Leydesdorff (2021; under review). A discussion of measuring the top-1% most-highly-cited publications: The case of China. Preprint available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3846583 .
Have a good week,
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/01e501d74b2f%240b4471a0%2421cd54e0%24%40gedye.plus.com.
Following up on this email---in a meeting just now which included Bhanu and his director, we discussed how the future of UNESCO’s open vision might evolve. This is the “competing” UNESCO/OSI vision, as laid out at last week’s WSIS conference (including presentations by me, Arianna, and Williams): https://bit.ly/3ygQiyG. Bhanu’s take is that UNESCO’s recently-passed open science policy is simply a recommendation, not a declaration. As such, it will be subject to much feedback, not only from other countries who didn’t speak up during last week’s meetings, but also from other channels. I think there is a lot of common ground between these approaches as well. The “essence” of both simply involves recognizing the importance of working together more effectively to improve access to scientific knowledge. TBD.
Best,
Glenn
From: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 8:52 AM
To: 'ric...@gedye.plus.com' <ric...@gedye.plus.com>; 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: UNESCO passes new open science "soft law"
Thanks Richard. At the same time, UNESCO has been promoting (and will continue to do so---big plans are underway) the OSI version of an open future where inclusiveness involves understanding and working together, and also not treating openness as a bunch of separate concerns (open access + open data + open source, etc.). It will be interesting to see how this is received---which version will resonate more. Regarding the other version of open (the one just approved) where science is supposed to become a global public good and ownership, competition, and prestige will somehow fade into the past….well, look no further than Caroline’s latest paper to see how this dynamic isn’t going away any time soon:
Caroline S. Wagner, Lin Zhang,, Koen Jonkers, & Loet Leydesdorff (2021; under review). A discussion of measuring the top-1% most-highly-cited publications: The case of China. Preprint available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3846583 .
Have a good week,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of ric...@gedye.plus.com
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 8:12 AM
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/01e501d74b2f%240b4471a0%2421cd54e0%24%40gedye.plus.com.
This forthcoming webinar may be of interest.
"Open Science to leave no one behind"
27 May 2021 15:00 CEST
Registration at : http://indico.ictp.it/event/9668/
Speakers:
Dr. Ana Persic, Science Policy and Partnerships, UNESCO
Dr. Rania M.H. Baleela, Pathogen Molecular Biologist and Open Access advocate, University of Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan
Abstract:
“To ensure that Science truly benefits the people and the planet and leaves no one behind, there is need to transform the entire scientific process. Open Science is a movement aiming to make science more open, accessible, efficient, democratic, and transparent.” (source UNESCO, 2020)
In the first part of the seminar we will learn from Dr.Ana Persic how UNESCO is taking the lead in building a global consensus on Open Science, including a common definition, a sheared set of values and proposals for action. In the second part Dr.Rania M.H. Baleela of University of Khartoum (Sudan) will present the challenges faced by researchers in less developed countries in making the Open Science principles an equal opportunity and a global reality.
Richard
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Glenn Hampson
Sent: 11 May 2021 18:35
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: UNESCO passes new open science "soft law"
Hi Folks,
UNESCO has just approved its draft policy for open science. This policy will be voted on by the full UN General Assembly in October. While there is a lot to dislike in this policy---unnecessary specificity, factual errors, ideological distractions, etc.---it is also important to, from a big picture view, recognize the importance of officially encouraging member states to consider open science and to provide a general framework for doing so. I think we can applaud the effort and take issue with some of the details at the same time---we’ll continue working through channels with UNESCO and member states to contribute to the specific open actions that may now be able to emerge from this consensus.
Best regards,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/008301d7468b%24e7b9a220%24b72ce660%24%40nationalscience.org.
I know…. And if you read the preamble, there’s a lot more hyperbole where that came from….
In UNESCO’s defense, these grand, sweeping statements are part of how we commonly, on the global policy stage, inspire action and mobilize support. But at some point in the actual policy details, these sentiments need to give way to realistic action plans. Otherwise, we risk losing support, and maybe losing the megaphone entirely….
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/5E0924B8-D91C-4828-A22C-A5A9362D75F0%40craigellachie.us.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/osi2016-25/ziXIsu7QxPw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/006601d74b46%24dfc91450%249f5b3cf0%24%40nationalscience.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/F6D02841-2CE1-44B9-9DB3-E74392BE905B%40gmail.com.
Hi Kathleen,
I also encourage everyone to read the document and come to their own conclusions.
Throughout the consultation process for this document, OSI encouraged UNESCO to not define open science or the compliance path to open too narrowly. While our group was heard in this process, I don’t think the final document adequately reflects these concerns---hence my concern (and it would actually be “unconscionable” if I wasn’t concerned).
Open science means many different things to different groups; and getting to open, especially in terms of open data collaborations, for example, is rarely if ever achieved in the way this document prescribes. Big, collaborative data enterprises are closed networks where data is pooled for specific users and under specific conditions. These kinds of collaborations work, and they’re doing incredible good for science. So, we want to encourage more of these kinds of efforts and not quash them under some global regulatory scheme that stipulates science is broken and we know exactly how to fix it. Neither is true. To the extent we can nurture and encourage more collaborations of all kinds---including north-north (which is really the purview of G10 or OECD and not UNESCO)---we should do so.
As for the incredible achievement part, I do agree that getting the world to pay attention to the need for improving how we share science knowledge is important. That’s the foundation. But how we make this improvement is critical. And that’s where I disagree with just about every paragraph of the UNESCO document, which is just filled to the brim with hyperbole, ideology and factual errors ---where do I start? Interestingly, it’s important to recognize that UNESCO itself isn’t done debating open science. Our partners for the last six years have been in the Communications and Information (CI) sector---pioneers in the open access movement. What passed in Paris last week came from the Natural Sciences sector. Ostensibly, the Paris draft was a unified UNESCO effort, but in reality, there is still a gulf between how CI/OSI have defined the challenge these past few years, and how NS defined it last week. There is common ground between these two positions---maybe that’s where the next phase of this effort will head.
So, to recap, yes---please do read the document and make up your own minds. There is no right and wrong here---just lots of important voices who deserve to be heard. Also, though, please do try to see this challenge as one where we’re all fighting for the same goal---not “open” as a goal unto itself, but the goal of improving how we share science so we can improve the value of science to all people everywhere.
As always, I’m happy to keep discussing this, on or off list. For more background on OSI’s thinking, our latest brief is a helpful 5-minute read: https://bit.ly/3eUlhsL.
Best regards,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
From: Kathleen Shearer <m.kathlee...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 11:07 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/58519CC3-8EC3-4F2A-965C-1C638B645926%40craigellachie.us.
Hi Ginny,
Thanks for writing. It’s always a pleasure to hear from you. My replies to your specific points are below:
Once again, I keep coming back to the fact that we’re on the same side here. I’ve delivered a dozen presentations over the last few years (Events & Conferences | OSI Global) detailing OSI’s approach and vision. It’s even more audacious than the vision described in UNESCO’s draft policy. This is a group that wants the future for open to be bright; but there are also many voices in this group (and elsewhere) who want the future of open to be evidence based and sustainable, not driven by ideology toward outcomes that might (and in some case, have already) make the open effort less well off than before. Paraphrasing what Susan Fitzpatrick said a few years ago, it’s remarkable how we’ve been so unscientific about our efforts to reform science. I think we can do better---I think we need to do better. And that’s the reason for my pushback here.
All the best,
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/CAF1wpVys-tUmJa_Vb-RO7n%2BLswyBEtWvJjgB%2BrKZRQsfCK8eUg%40mail.gmail.com.
One additional point of clarification if I may: Although UNESCO’s Natural Science sector was driving the bus on this effort, this was still a UNESCO-wide effort, not a sectoral pitch. Our policy partners to-date, the CI sector, work primarily on open access and open data issue and not directly on open science; this open science pitch by the NS sector was overarching on behalf of all of UNESCO. So, what you’re hearing from me here is inside baseball stuff and my personal opinion---my personal observation that this policy doesn’t align well with previous thinking by UNESCO and OSI on open matters, but not a suggestion that all of UNESCO doesn’t stand behind this effort. They do, and as Ginny was describing, this document will now be submitted to the executive board for negotiation and then to the General Conference for its final endorsement, where member states will have their say to agree or disagree with the text in-toto or open it for changes.
It’s a huge accomplishment for Ana and her team in the Natural Sciences sector to have come so far so fast with this policy. Further to Ginny’s point, OSI will indeed continue to look for ways to engage with this effort so it better reflects our concerns and so we can help make some of the key action items more actionable. Policymaking isn’t about getting everything you want or going home; I recognize that we’re all fighting for the same general outcome, so will make sure to keep us engaged.
Hope this helps.
Best,
Glenn
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/00b301d74b84%24871dea90%249559bfb0%24%40nationalscience.org.