From: Fred Dylla <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 13:30:54 +0000 LIBLICENSE readers: As chair of the STM Working Group for Article Sharing on Scientific Collaboration Networks (SCNs), I am delighted to see our draft guidelines being discussed in this forum. I especially thank Ann Okerson for providing three key questions about our attempt to draw-up a set of draft principles for article sharing, and Scott Plutchak for his careful analysis, which largely sums up our intent for this engagement exercise. Here are responses to Ann’s comments and questions from her March 3rd posting on LIBLICENSE: ----Ann: Scholars and researchers are hampered from scholarly sharing of their and their colleagues' works, and the wish is to help them to share without worrying that they shouldn't be doing this. (If this is the case, we in libraries don't encounter such fears.) Fred: Yes, we have received questions from libraries and researchers about what tools and sharing mechanisms are allowed for sharing articles using these networks, so we hope to answer some of these questions and provide clarity and needed consistency across the wide scholarly research community. ----Ann: It would be interesting to learn how much work is being shared among scholars in their networks and communities. (Possibly, but then why should we try to shape the way in which different scholarly/research communities do this, which seems to be asked for, by creating principles and asking for signatures.) Fred: Yes, we see scholarly sharing increasing over time with these networks—they clearly provide a more efficient means of article sharing than an author’s mailing list or posting on the author's website. As user loyalty to individual publisher sites or other platforms can shift, it’s beneficial to all stakeholders to have broader insight into what content is being consumed and how SCNs are being used by researchers to improve their ability to collaborate. ----Ann: A number of folks read this initiative as paving the way to regulating and monetizing scholarly sharing. (Maybe this is a cynical interpretation, but it's not an illogical one.) Fred: We intend to lower barriers to sharing documents and encourage collaboration between all actors. All of us in this enterprise – authors, their collaborators, librarians, SCNs and publishers – share the goal of ensuring that journal articles are read and used to advance research. ----Scott Plutchak’s March 4th LIBLICENSE analysis of the intention of this exercise and our request for the scholarly community to weigh in on the draft principles is accurate. I hope the summary below describing the purpose of STM’s efforts on this topic will be a useful complement to Scott’s commentary: The primary goal of this STM consultation with the community is to minimize ambiguity between researchers, publishers, and SCNs about how article sharing is best supported, and to deliver a better experience to researchers, while giving visibility to publishers and institutions on the activity around sharing. Actions that are encouraged that are consistent with this goal include: * Developers of SCNs should configure their systems to make the distinction between posting articles (OA) and metadata (for non-OA) clear and efficient; * Publishers and SCNs should provide consistent support for sharing articles in private groups and define a clear path for public posting of subscription content; * All sectors of the scholarly community should work together to develop systems that could track how much such sharing actually takes place. If we are successful with the above actions then we will minimize ambiguity and mixed messages from SCNs about what kind of article sharing their systems should be used for. We would further avoid a flurry of individual and inconsistent policy statements on the part of publishers, and uncertainty on the part of SCN users about what is appropriate when using these systems. The publishers involved in the STM Association effort could be questioned for just including publishers in the initial effort of the producing the draft principles statement. But we initially had disparate views that we needed to align to make sure we were on the same page ourselves, before opening our consultation to the wider community. We very much welcome input from librarians and networks not connected to publishers to broaden the consultation. To participate, see the STM Consultation webpage: http://www.stm-assoc.org/stm-consultations/scn-consultation-2015/. Fred Dylla H. Frederick Dylla Chair, STM working group for article sharing on scholarly collaboration networks (SCNs) Executive Director & CEO, American Institute of Physics