From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 01:50:38 +0000

I would add only one clarification to Glenn¹s note below. In addition to
OA supporters and OA critics, the conversation also included people (like
myself) whom I would characterize as OA ³agnostics² ‹ people who are
ambivalent because they see tremendous value in open access, but also
complications, costs, and problems that it isn¹t always fun or popular to
discuss. The scholarly communication system is a complex one, its problems
are complicated and multidimensional, and the spectrum of attitudes that
exist in regard to OA can¹t accurately be reduced to a representation as
binary as ³supporter² and ³critic.²

(For the record, I know Glenn isn¹t being intentionally reductionist here
‹ his moderation of the discussion showed him to have a rare sense of
nuance and sensitivity to the range of views that were expressed.)

---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
Marriott Library, University of Utah
[log in to unmask]



On 2/16/15, 5:23 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>From: Glenn Hampson <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 4:24 PM
>
>Hi Ann, Richard Poynder was kind enough to forward me your email to
>the liblicense-l listserv. I don¹t subscribe to this list, so perhaps
>you would be able to distribute this note as warranted.
>
>The OSI working group was/is a group of volunteers who signed up last
>fall to participate in an online conversation about the future of
>scholarly publishing. We (nSCI) invited interested participants from a
>number of lists in September of 2014 (though, unfortunately, not the
>liblicense list---my bad), and began our online discussion in October.
>The main conversation just wrapped up last month. The draft paper you
>noted in your email was posted online and also circulated back to
>listserv communities for review and comment. The authors and editors
>are noted on the copyright page.
>
>We had around 120 people signed up for this conversation---of whom
>maybe a few dozen were active participants. I¹m not sure why all
>didn¹t sign---it¹s mostly just a lack of effort on our part to make
>sure that all names were included (we¹ll try again to get more names
>listed before the final version is sealed). I know two people were
>worried about signing due to potential conflicts of interest with
>their employers. But signing doesn¹t signify agreement with the
>recommendations or findings---just participation in this conversation.
>
>We had a good mix of open access supporters and critics take part in
>this conversation, plus folks who are actively engaged in trying to
>push the ball forward in the marketplace and figure out how to make
>change work at the library level and government level. There¹s enough
>criticism of OA in the report to make most supporters uncomfortable,
>and enough support of OA to make most critics uncomfortable. This
>report is still in the comment stage, so if you think we need to make
>some changes, please feel free to let me know.
>
>I would caution against calling this a ³study.² It isn¹t. It¹s just
>the curated notes of an illuminating online conversation between some
>very well-informed and interested people who operate in this space---a
>conversation that grew out of the OA events of this past summer, and
>the exchanges that were occurring on a few related listserv at the
>time (like the scholcomm listserv, research admin listserv, and a few
>others). There wasn¹t a careful and deliberate effort here to first
>identify and then invite all the right people.  The stakeholder
>community here is so broad and deep---that task in itself will be a
>research project!
>
>As for nSCI, we¹re just a small all-volunteer nonprofit charity
>managing a portfolio of projects (like OSI) that are primarily focused
>on improving the communication that happens inside science. We¹ve been
>around for about four years now. We¹re not backed by anyone (other
>than our members) and we don¹t have an agenda, other than working for
>improvement.  Our web address is nationalscience.org. Our projects are
>listed at nationalscience.org/projects. I¹d be happy to answer any
>specific questions you might have after reviewing our website. I
>apologize for opacity----it¹s certainly not deliberate (our website is
>overdue for a makeover), but then we¹re a little bit off the beaten
>path, at least right for now.
>
>I¹d be happy to discuss this effort with you, including providing more
>details about the ASR effort. We¹ve set up a separate listserv to deal
>with conference planning discussions and ASR development issues.
>Anyone interested is welcome to join----just let me know and I¹ll sign
>you up.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Glenn Hampson
>Executive Director
>National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)
>2320 N 137th Street
>Seattle, WA 98133
>(206) 417-3607
>[log in to unmask]
>nationalscience.org