From: Ann Okerson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 10:54 PM I second Anthony's comments about Fred Dylla's deep commitment to dialog. Fred is extraordinary in so many ways. But I'm puzzled about the intent of this initiative; it's hard to tell exactly what it's trying to do and what problem it's trying to solve. Three possibilities came to mind: 1. *Scholars and researchers are hampered from scholarlysharing 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.) 2. *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.) 3. A number of folks read this initiative as *paving the way toregulating and monetizing scholarly sharing. * (Maybe this is a cynical interpretation, but it's not an illogical one.) Several colleagues who might like to submit comments are not quite sure what they'd be commenting about, as the purpose of this initiative isn't clear -- or perhaps it feels inherently contradictory. Insights would be appreciated. Ann ******* From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 12:40:54 +0000 There are people involved in scholarly communication who want to engage in dialogue and those who do not. Fred is one of the former. The term "Publishing Industry" is a real give away. Fred is a scientist who now runs a membership organisation which represents scientists. I suppose AIP is "industry" (for some) though its mission is much the same as the mission of the people who pay Chuck. I am not so sure of Danny's organisation. I know nothing about STM's motivations (no-one has discussed this planned consultation with me) but I do know that if Fred supports it, it will be a genuine attempt to take soundings among the people who have something to say. I have involved in some research on sharing recently and can with some certainty state that the nature of "natural discourse of scholarly communication" may be obvious to some but to those of us who are trying to understand it (what researchers actually think and do) it is a very complicated area indeed. It is likely that there will be a presentation on what the research (UTK and CIBER) have demonstrated so far at the forthcoming followed later by publications. Anthony -----Original Message----- From: "Hamaker, Charles" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 05:44:57 +0000 AMEN! Chuck Hamaker ________________________________________ From: Danny Kingsley <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 20:57:31 +0000 Thanks Fred, My comment is this appears to be an attempt to try and catch the cat that has left the bag some time ago. Caveats on sizes of academic groups would seem to be an attempt to exclude ResearchGate and Academia.edu and the wish to track everything seems like a way to get 'evidence' that the publishing industry can then later try and turn into an argument of further restrictions on sharing. I¹m sorry, but this document does not demonstrate a genuine interest in allowing the natural discourse of scholarly communication to go on. Danny Dr Danny Kingsley Visiting Fellow Australian National Centre for the Public Awareness of Science (CPAS) w: http://cpas.anu.edu.au/about-us/people/danny-kingsley t: @dannykay68 On 25/02/2015 01:43, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >From: Fred Dylla <[log in to unmask]> >Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 17:01:29 +0000 > >Colleagues, > >The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical >Publishers (STM) (http://www.stm-assoc.org/) has initiated a formal >consultation on the sharing of published articles via scholarly >collaboration networks (SCNs). STM is reaching out to stakeholders to >invite and encourage wide participation in the consultation. We have >sent more than a dozen invitations to various library consortia around >the world, and believe that individual subscribers to LIBLICENSE might >also be interested in participating as you share the commitment to >meeting the needs of researchers.. > >In effort to ensure that we capture as much feedback for consideration >as possible, we invite LIBLICENSE subscribers to submit their ideas, >impressions or support through official channels, hosted on the STM >website: http://www.stm-assoc.org/stm-consultations/scn-consultation-2015. >The consultation is open through April 10th. > >Fred Dylla > >H. Frederick Dylla > >Chair, STM working group for article sharing on scholarly collaboration >networks (SCNs) > >Executive Director & CEO, American Institute of Physics