From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 03:33:34 +0000

Good to know, Chan (and Ivy), thanks. If you decide you’d like to
write up the results of that survey (whatever the results may be) for
public dissemination, I’d love to talk to you about possibly doing so
in the Scholarly Kitchen. Please contact me offlist if that sounds
interesting to you.

---

Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
[log in to unmask]


From: Chan Li <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 14:34:57 -0700

Hi Rick,

I am the Assessment Librarian at UC Berkeley Library.  We are planning
to conduct a survey of all Berkeley faculty by using Ithaka S+R Local
Faculty Survey instrument this Fall. As you might now, there are many
questions related to faculty’s perception on scholarly communication
issues, open access, and publication dissemination channels. Although
the faculty survey project is not planned according to the "UC Call
for Action”, it will provide interesting data about Berkeley faculty’s
level of enthusiasm on this issue.

Thanks,

Chan

Chan Li
Assessment Program Librarian
University of California, Berkeley
[log in to unmask]
510-664-5806



On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 6:04 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 03:47:06 +0000

Thanks, Ivy, this is indeed helpful. And just to clarify -- at no
point was I in doubt as to the "primary directionality" of this
effort. My question wasn't about its general direction, which is very
clear, but about the characteristics of the expressed end goal ("a
truly open scholarly communication system"). This does shed some
light, and I appreciate it.

As you guys have gathered input from rank-and-file faculty (as
distinct from the leadership committees) about this initiative, how
would you gauge their level of enthusiasm?

Rick Anderson
[log in to unmask]

________________________________

From: Ivy Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:46:50 +0000
Hi Rick,

Let me try to be a little clearer. I’m one of the drafters of the
statement under discussion, so I think my statements are reasonably
authoritative on the subject.  And I think the bulk of my response was
pretty unequivocal - our goal is to promote, through concerted and
sustained action, and with clear purpose aligned with our public
mission, a scholarly communications system for research publication
that does not rely on toll access.

Any caveats around that statement were intended to discourage
unproductive detours into niche areas and edge cases.  I think the
primary directionality should be pretty clear, as is its endorsement
by UC’s key leadership committees.

As to what that system will look like, I imagine it will be diverse
and continually evolving.  APC models, community investment models,
academy-controlled and supported infrastructure, the evolution of
preprint and other forms of early dissemination to accommodate new
models of peer review and validation, will all be part of the mix.
Which of those models will win out, and in which disciplines or
communities, will involve a process of discovery and experimentation
among all stakeholders.  We’re all engaged in a fascinating journey
whose unfolding we have an opportunity to influence, but the ultimate
shape of which will only be fully known in hindsight.

This doesn’t mean that our goals, or intended actions, should be
interpreted as modest or moderate in any meaningful sense.

Ivy Anderson