From: T Scott Plutchak <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:58:07 +0000
I was not involved in the online discussion, but I've spent some time
going through the report.
The front matter to the report includes the following:
" The 112 participants who signed up to participate in this
conversation were drawn mostly from the academic, research, and
library communities. Most of these 112 were not active in this
conversation, but a healthy diversity of key perspectives was still
"Individual participants may not agree with all of the viewpoints
described herein, but participants agree that this document reflects
the spirit and content of the conversation.
"This main body of this document was written by Glenn Hampson and
edited by Joyce Ogburn and Laura Ada Emmett. Additional editorial
input was provided by many members of the OSI working group. Kathleen
Shearer is the author of Annex 5, with editing by Dominque Bambini and
Glenn Hampson is the exec director of nSCI, the organization that
pulled the OSI working group together. nSCI, as far as I can tell, is
largely a one man operation. From a close reading of the document, I
gather that the recommendations are less consensus statements and more
reflections of the breadth of the online discussions among the 20 or
so active participants.
I thought the report was a pretty good compendium of the current range
of issues being discussed by those who are concerned with how the
scholarly communication landscape is changing and it is valuable for
that reason. It is certainly worth taking some time to read through
it, and perhaps consideration of the recommendations will spark some
T Scott Plutchak | Director of Digital Data Curation Strategies
UAB | The University of Alabama at Birmingham
The Edge of Chaos – LHL 427
From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 16:56:47 -0500
This daft report has appeared from a relatively new organization
called The Open Science Initiative Working group of the national
Science Communication Institute. It doesn't seem possible tell who
the drafting/editing people were, pulling together from what was
obviously a much larger conversation. Apparently a large group of
thought leaders was invited to join an email dialog. 24 of them chose
to sign the document and 90 didn't, for whatever reason. Would be
interesting to hear more about this report from those who know more.
Meanwhile, the draft (final report to be released in March) highlights
the diversity in in perceptions about open access. It recommends 10
years of high level (productive) conference-based conversations and
recommends exploring "the world's first all-scholarship repository,"
stating that work is already in progress about this.
Any more information available about this ASR?
Summary Blog Post