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