From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 01:14:12 +0000
I was involved with the online discussion and with the writing of the
document, and I can confirm that it does not represent a consensus view,
but rather the range of views that were expressed over the course of that
Assoc. Dean for Scholarly Resources & Collections
Marriott Library, University of Utah
[log in to unmask]
On 2/16/15, 5:22 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>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