From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:51:42 -0400

Ivy,

I am sure your account of the votes of your faculty library committees
is correct, but I wonder about selection bias. I interview researchers
all day long for various professional societies, and the reservations
about OA among this group is profound. Selection bias again?  Sure. We
talk to heads of societies and board members, who are usually people
at the top of their fields, and, at least for them, the traditional
system has worked very well. But I have to wonder why we continue to
hear about near-unanimity from library-connected groups when we
(privately) hear the very opposite from professional society-connected
groups.

Joe Esposito

--
Joseph J. Esposito
[log in to unmask]
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 11:09 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Ivy Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 02:06:22 +0000
>
> Hi Rick, As you can imagine, faculty consultation is an ongoing
> process.  The fact that all (I believe) of our campus-level faculty
> library committees have voted to support the OA2020 initiative should
> offer some indication.  Most of the questions we’ve fielded to date
> center on understanding the economic implications.
>
> Best
> Ivy
>
> Ivy Anderson
> Associate Executive Director & Director of Collections
> California Digital Library
> University of California, Office of the President
> [log in to unmask]  |  http://cdlib.org
>
>
>
> On 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