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 discussion. --- Rick Anderson 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 >represented. > >"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 >Richard Poynder." > >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 >useful discussion. > >Scott > > >T Scott Plutchak | Director of Digital Data Curation Strategies >UAB | The University of Alabama at Birmingham >The Edge of Chaos LHL 427 >http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4712-5233 >uab.edu > > >-----Original Message----- >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? > >See: > >Summary Blog Post >http://nationalscience.org/nsci-focus-areas/science-writing/2015/open-scie >nce-initiative-issues-new-paper-recommendations/ > >Full Text >http://nationalscience.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/OSI-report-Feb-2015. >pdf