LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L Home

LIBLICENSE-L  February 2015

LIBLICENSE-L February 2015

Subject:

Clarification (Re: Open Science Initiative issues draft paper & recommendations)

From:

LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 17 Feb 2015 19:35:41 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (102 lines)

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

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options



Archives

March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011

RSS1