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
On Jun 26, 2018, at 7:08 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2018 03:42:32 +0000
Thanks, Ivy. But at the risk of being called a stickler again, I guess I’ll
just point out that the sentiment you’re expressing (basically, “let’s get
things as open as we can as soon as we can and avoid making the perfect the
enemy of the good”) is a pretty moderate one. The UC system’s expressed
position is much stronger and more categorical: “achieving a truly open
scholarly communication system (is a) moral imperative.” The difference
between those two positions isn’t a nitpicky semantic one or just a matter
of word choice; they look like fundamentally different stances.
As you pointed out, you’re just speaking for yourself, which of course is
all you can do. But since there seems to be quite a bit of daylight between
your expressed position and the one expressed in the UC statement, I’d
still be interested to know what the UC system means by “a truly open
scholarly communication system.” If achieving such a thing really is a
moral imperative—and if an organization as large and influential as UC is
actively working to make it happen—then dang, isn’t it important to be able
to say what its characteristics are, and how we’ll know when it’s been
achieved?
Is there someone at UC who can answer that question?
---
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: Ivy Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 19:09:10 +0000
Hi Rick,
You’re such a stickler for language… ;-)
Without wishing to assert that anything I say here represents the views of
the entirety of the University of California, since many hands went into
drafting this statement, and of course we are a large and diverse system –
We would like to see a scholarly publishing system emerge in which funding
for publication does not interfere with or impose barriers to dissemination
and re-use. As a public institution that takes its public service mission
seriously, we believe the fruits of UC scholarship should be open to the
citizens and scholars of California, the nation, and the world. Clearly
this won’t happen overnight, and certainly there are disciplines, genres,
and formats that present more challenges than others. The statement we’ve
drafted refers specifically to the research journal literature, but like
many other institutions, we have experiments and initiatives underway in
the monographic space as well. And while many consider open access more
feasible in the sciences than in non-STEM fields, making the humanities and
social sciences literature open is arguably even more important as a means
of informing public policy and stimulating intellectual inquiry. So this
is just to say that we would hope that toll access publishing would
eventually – and sooner rather than later if we can marshal the collective
will – operate under a business model or models that are no longer
predicated on restricting and metering access.
So my answer is yes – we envision a world that puts an end to toll access
scholarly publishing.
But let’s also avoid the mistake of making the perfect the enemy of the
good – the more we can accomplish, the better, and the sooner, the better.
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
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 03:17:34 +0000
This is really interesting, Ivy – thanks for sharing it.
One question: I notice the phrase “the moral imperative of achieving a
truly open scholarly communication system.” Can you tell us how UC defines
a “truly open scholarly communication system”? Or to put it another way,
when that goal has been achieved, what will the scholarly communication
system look like? (For example, will there still be any role at all for
toll-access publishing, or will it have gone away entirely?)
---
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: Ivy Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 17:37:46 +0000
List members may be interested in this statement from the University of
California, issued today:
Over the past year, the University of California’s Systemwide Library and
Scholarly Information Advisory Committee (SLASIAC), in partnership with our
university libraries and the systemwide academic senate’s Committee on
Library and Scholarly Communication (UCOLASC), has been considering the
twin challenges of journal affordability and the moral imperative of
achieving a truly open scholarly communication system. Making the research
produced at the University of California open to the world has long been an
important goal at UC, as evidenced by the strong Open Access policies
enacted at the campus and systemwide level, our many initiatives to create
open access publishing options for UC authors (including CDL’s eScholarship
publishing service and our early open access pilots with third party
publishers), and most recently, a Declaration of Rights and Principles to
Transform Scholarly Communication promulgated by UCOLASC.
We believe it is time to take a further step along this road.
http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2018/06/championing-ch
ange-in-journal-negotiations/
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
|
