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 don’t 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. I’m not sure why all didn’t sign---it’s mostly just a lack of effort on our part to make sure that all names were included (we’ll 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 doesn’t 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. There’s 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 “study.” It isn’t. It’s 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 wasn’t 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, we’re 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. We’ve been around for about four years now. We’re not backed by anyone (other than our members) and we don’t have an agenda, other than working for improvement. Our web address is nationalscience.org. Our projects are listed at nationalscience.org/projects. I’d be happy to answer any specific questions you might have after reviewing our website. I apologize for opacity----it’s certainly not deliberate (our website is overdue for a makeover), but then we’re a little bit off the beaten path, at least right for now. I’d be happy to discuss this effort with you, including providing more details about the ASR effort. We’ve 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 I’ll 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