From: Glenn Hampson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 7:34 PM
Hi Ashley,
I don’t know of anyone who is defending the status quo---certainly not on
these lists, where everyone is either involved in or knows of different
efforts working to improve different pieces of the scholcomm puzzle.
Starting to gather around a common goal is critical and Plan S is helpful
in this regard. However, I think some are arguing that Plan S as it is
currently understood (by many, not all) isn’t so much a broad, inclusive,
achievable, sustainable goal as it is a premature solution---although it is
too soon to judge as Bianca notes.
Can we learn from what SciELO has done in Latin America? Absolutely, and
that’s one of the many things we’re discussing at the moment with UNESCO.
But envisioning customized SciELO-type networks for Africa, CAMENA and SE
Asia is not the same as envisioning Plan S for everyone everywhere.
With regard to the global south concerns, whereas the ability to read
research work was one of the challenges before, in an APC-majority world
the crisis could become pay-to-even-participate in research. Neither
outcome is acceptable, of course, but the latter may create inequities even
more damaging than the current system.
I won’t reply to the rest of your points here (I’d be happy to continue
off-list)---I think my word limit has been used up for the week.
Best regards (and happy Thanksgiving!),
Glenn
*Glenn Hampson*
*Executive Director*
*Science Communication Institute (SCI) <http://sci.institute>*
*Program Director**Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) <http://osiglobal.org>*
*From:* Ashley Farley <[log in to unmask]>
*Sent:* Sunday, November 18, 2018 3:16 PM
*To:* Kramer, B.M.R. (Bianca) <[log in to unmask]>;
[log in to unmask]; 'LIBLICENSE' <[log in to unmask]>;
'scholcomm' <[log in to unmask]>; Glenn Hampson <
[log in to unmask]>
Hi all,
I wanted to share another reaction to the Open Letter, that was published
yesterday, that does a fantastic job responding to each concern brought
forth by the letter
http://researchpracticesandtools.blogspot.com/2018/11/how-strong-are-objections-to-plan-s.html
To make a few other points relevant to the discussion:
- It’s a bit disingenuous to mention lower-resource researchers now in
the discussion. This has been an issue with traditional publishing for
decades. These researchers already struggle to afford articles – both to
read & to publish – for many reasons (cost, power structures, technologies,
etc). Working towards critical openness could led to a more equitable
research ecosystem – defending the status quo does not. Other countries
(see Latin America) have been more successful in OA publishing and we could
learn a lot from their examples.
- No one is arguing that the APC model is best and the only model to
sustain OA. Funders agreeing to Plan S understand that publishing has costs
and will pay these costs on their grantees behalf. I look forward to more
discussion about how manage these fees. I would love to see a flat,
transparent fee for all publications.
- The goal of Plan S is to drive systematic change – hybrids journals
were marketed as a transition and this hasn’t been the result. It’s not
meant to fit the current system.
- The Gates foundation has required only a CC-BY license since 2015.
This has led to a change in publishers policies without any immediate
fallout. I do acknowledge that most of our funded work fits well under this
model as we primarily publish in STEM disciplines. It’s critical to me
moving forward that author’s retain their copyright.
- I would argue that credit and competition (over collaboration) has
been the biggest harm to science. The answers to the toughest problems that
we face globally will not be solved or answered by a single person or team.
Best,
Ashley
*Ashley Farley*
*Associate Officer *
*Knowledge & Research Services*
*P* +1 206-709-3278
*E* *[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>*
*T* @AshleydFarley <https://twitter.com/ashleydfarley>
*From:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> *On
Behalf Of *Kramer, B.M.R. (Bianca)
*Sent:* Sunday, November 18, 2018 2:29 PM
*To:* [log in to unmask]; 'LIBLICENSE' <[log in to unmask]>;
'scholcomm' <[log in to unmask]>; Glenn Hampson <
[log in to unmask]>
Hi Glenn, all,
A big problem I see in many of the current discussions around Plan S
(including statements made in the open letter) is that it makes assumptions
that are not currently corroborated by the preamble and principles:
1) that Plan S will focus on an APC-based gold OA (nowhere in the plan is
diamond OA, and support therefore, excluded)
2) that issues of evaluation (as you state: "issues like impact factors,
peer review, publish or perish pressures") will not be addressed as part of
the plan (partipating funders explicitly commit to "commit to fundamentally
revise the incentive and reward system of science, using the San Francisco
Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)4 as a starting point").
Now we will have to see how and to what extent both these points (as well
as the position of green OA) will be addressed in the implementation plan,
that has been promised to become available for public consultation at the
end of November. I for one am reserving judgement until then.
kind regards, Bianca
101 Innovations in Scholarly Communication
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2F101innovations.wordpress.com&data=02%7C01%7Cashley.farley%40gatesfoundation.org%7C599befbacf7a447a87bb08d64da54506%7C296b38384bd5496cbd4bf456ea743b74%7C0%7C1%7C636781769568674635&sdata=fwPQTGStfO%2FCeoy%2FDSrrCXrktRc%2F%2BVUnFjE6V45MNFM%3D&reserved=0>
.....................
Bianca Kramer, PhD | Subject Specialist Life Sciences and Medicine |
Utrecht University Library | Heidelberglaan 3 Utrecht NL-3584 CS |
www.uu.nl/library
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.uu.nl%2Fen%2Funiversity-library&data=02%7C01%7Cashley.farley%40gatesfoundation.org%7C599befbacf7a447a87bb08d64da54506%7C296b38384bd5496cbd4bf456ea743b74%7C0%7C1%7C636781769568674635&sdata=PQoz%2BkHLoSSG1zVscESQoUWfeqvr7LMg536rHyFM5Vs%3D&reserved=0>
| [log in to unmask] | room G.01.503 UMC Utrecht | working days Thu-Fri |
Twitter: @MsPhelps
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2F%40MsPhelps&data=02%7C01%7Cashley.farley%40gatesfoundation.org%7C599befbacf7a447a87bb08d64da54506%7C296b38384bd5496cbd4bf456ea743b74%7C0%7C1%7C636781769568674635&sdata=6GvqwUvQMVQi1ISw1FYDEB2HBMkVhTZgHbL3FvqBcO4%3D&reserved=0>
------------------------------
*From:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
on behalf of Glenn Hampson <[log in to unmask]>
*Sent:* 18 November 2018 22:56:00
*To:* [log in to unmask]; 'LIBLICENSE'; 'scholcomm'
Hi Jean Claude,
No one has demonstrated that Plan S will hurt science? What kind of
evidence are you looking for? Quite a number of individuals and
institutions have expressed their concerns that lower-resourced researchers
(from smaller institutions, from the global south, and from outside
universities) will be unable to fully participate in an APC-centric
publishing world. Many researchers have expressed reservations about how
their ability to communicate through established channels with their peers
will be impeded. And still other researchers have expressed concerns that
CC-BY requirements will affect competition, credit, and other factors
central to science. Perhaps you are correct that no one has demonstrated
definitively that Plan S will hurt science, but neither have we really
bothered yet to take the many concerns about this plan seriously.
I used to be a carpenter, Jean-Claude, and the oldest maxim in carpentry is
“measure twice, cut once.” If our intent is to regulate science to this
degree, then we really need to understand the full array of possible
consequences before we go rushing headlong into implementing solutions,
especially ones like Plan S that are so transformative.
With regard to dire problems, here again, some will point out that the
current system is not collapsing. For most researchers it serves them just
fine, thank you (hence the inertia and lack of urgency that have bedeviled
reform efforts). Costs certainly need to be addressed, and a global flip
may help lower overall costs (for some more than others), but there are
still going to be costs---still just a fraction of overall research
spending, but again impacting some more than others so not inconsequential.
Addressing these costs is important, but APCs are not the only possible way
to do so. Also, cost (as in figuring out how we’re going to pay for this)
is only a small part of the open puzzle. In order to make open reforms
truly effective and sustainable, we also need to focus on a broad palette
of reforms to the entire system without which scholarly publishing will
remain “disrupted”--- issues like impact factors, peer review, publish or
perish pressures, deceptive publishing, and more. With Plan S, we are
jumping to conclusions, and jumping over problems that need to be fixed now
in order to really make open workable.
Again, though, it’s fantastic that so many people are tuning in---maybe
this will be the initiative to build on.
Best,
Glenn
*Glenn Hampson*
*Executive Director*
*Science Communication Institute (SCI)
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=sci.institute&data=02%7C01%7Cashley.farley%40gatesfoundation.org%7C599befbacf7a447a87bb08d64da54506%7C296b38384bd5496cbd4bf456ea743b74%7C0%7C0%7C636781769568674635&sdata=W8R1K21rG0VoEWW9PEytqnDi1RiWTbDtW35CjX602Hc%3D&reserved=0>*
*Program Director**Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=osiglobal.org&data=02%7C01%7Cashley.farley%40gatesfoundation.org%7C599befbacf7a447a87bb08d64da54506%7C296b38384bd5496cbd4bf456ea743b74%7C0%7C0%7C636781769568674635&sdata=8eMSKF8RoaKGXLJULHLR1hIa4Hd77PPjmT5HYAa9YU8%3D&reserved=0>*
*From:* Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
*Sent:* Sunday, November 18, 2018 12:37 PM
*To:* Glenn Hampson <[log in to unmask]>; 'LIBLICENSE' <
[log in to unmask]>; 'scholcomm' <[log in to unmask]>
*Cc:* [log in to unmask]
*Subject:* Re: [SCHOLCOMM] The Plan S debate
Point 1 is exactly correct. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And no
one has demonstrated that the requests of Plan S will hurt science.
Point 2 would be correct if the situation of scholarly communication were
not so fraught with dire problems, including the incapacity of our
libraries to pay for the subscriptions of the journals or the APCs. Given
the unsustainable situation that presently obtains, it might be much better
for libraries to see how to use at least part of their acquisition budgets
to ally with funding agencies, and create publishing platforms. The more
the number and the diversity of involved institutions, the more robust the
putative, emergent, system will be.
Jean-Claude Guédon
Le dimanche 18 novembre 2018 à 10:04 -0800, Glenn Hampson a écrit :
Hi Jean-Claude,
Thank you for sharing this response (I am forwarding it to the OSI list
since we’re actively debating this issue as well). I’m sure you’ll agree
that there are valid points in both the open letter and the response---it’s
a complex issue made more complex by the flexibility of the plan and
speculation about its implementation and impact.
What I personally think needs to be pushed back on are two statements made
in the response:
1. “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” This is true of course, but
public funders at least (perhaps less so private funders) have a
responsibility to ensure that they are serving science. It is callous and
even arrogant to tell researchers to just go find their funding elsewhere
if they don’t like the conditions being imposed on their research. And,
2. “The [open] Letter offers plenty of unargued criticism, but no viable
alternative to the currently unsustainable academic publishing landscape.
Worse, it fails to grasp the opportunities offered by Plan S to do so.” It
is true that our community’s initial reaction to this plan has been
polarized. Where we go from here is important. We can harden our positions,
or we can capitalize on all this attention and visibility to try to improve
this plan and address the concerns that have been raised about it. There
are indeed opportunities here, but valid concerns as well. It isn’t
necessarily incumbent on the critics to come up with a better plan.
Hopefully, if we’re all serious about improving the future of open, we can
keep the lines of communication open and listen to the criticisms, and
together come up with a Plan S-2.0 that is widely embraced.
Thanks again for sharing.
Best regards,
Glenn
*Glenn Hampson*
*Executive Director*
*Science Communication Institute (SCI)
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=sci.institute&data=02%7C01%7Cashley.farley%40gatesfoundation.org%7C599befbacf7a447a87bb08d64da54506%7C296b38384bd5496cbd4bf456ea743b74%7C0%7C0%7C636781769568674635&sdata=W8R1K21rG0VoEWW9PEytqnDi1RiWTbDtW35CjX602Hc%3D&reserved=0>*
*Program Director**Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=osiglobal.org&data=02%7C01%7Cashley.farley%40gatesfoundation.org%7C599befbacf7a447a87bb08d64da54506%7C296b38384bd5496cbd4bf456ea743b74%7C0%7C0%7C636781769568674635&sdata=8eMSKF8RoaKGXLJULHLR1hIa4Hd77PPjmT5HYAa9YU8%3D&reserved=0>*
[image: OSI-logo-email-sm2]
<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=osiglobal.org&data=02%7C01%7Cashley.farley%40gatesfoundation.org%7C599befbacf7a447a87bb08d64da54506%7C296b38384bd5496cbd4bf456ea743b74%7C0%7C0%7C636781769568674635&sdata=8eMSKF8RoaKGXLJULHLR1hIa4Hd77PPjmT5HYAa9YU8%3D&reserved=0>
|
