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