From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 03:33:34 +0000 Good to know, Chan (and Ivy), thanks. If you decide you’d like to write up the results of that survey (whatever the results may be) for public dissemination, I’d love to talk to you about possibly doing so in the Scholarly Kitchen. Please contact me offlist if that sounds interesting to you. --- Rick Anderson Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication Marriott Library, University of Utah Desk: (801) 587-9989 Cell: (801) 721-1687 [log in to unmask] From: Chan Li <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 14:34:57 -0700 Hi Rick, I am the Assessment Librarian at UC Berkeley Library. We are planning to conduct a survey of all Berkeley faculty by using Ithaka S+R Local Faculty Survey instrument this Fall. As you might now, there are many questions related to faculty’s perception on scholarly communication issues, open access, and publication dissemination channels. Although the faculty survey project is not planned according to the "UC Call for Action”, it will provide interesting data about Berkeley faculty’s level of enthusiasm on this issue. Thanks, Chan Chan Li Assessment Program Librarian University of California, Berkeley [log in to unmask] 510-664-5806 On Wed, Jun 27, 2018 at 6:04 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 03:47:06 +0000 Thanks, Ivy, this is indeed helpful. And just to clarify -- at no point was I in doubt as to the "primary directionality" of this effort. My question wasn't about its general direction, which is very clear, but about the characteristics of the expressed end goal ("a truly open scholarly communication system"). This does shed some light, and I appreciate it. As you guys have gathered input from rank-and-file faculty (as distinct from the leadership committees) about this initiative, how would you gauge their level of enthusiasm? Rick Anderson [log in to unmask] ________________________________ From: Ivy Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 02:46:50 +0000 Hi Rick, Let me try to be a little clearer. I’m one of the drafters of the statement under discussion, so I think my statements are reasonably authoritative on the subject. And I think the bulk of my response was pretty unequivocal - our goal is to promote, through concerted and sustained action, and with clear purpose aligned with our public mission, a scholarly communications system for research publication that does not rely on toll access. Any caveats around that statement were intended to discourage unproductive detours into niche areas and edge cases. I think the primary directionality should be pretty clear, as is its endorsement by UC’s key leadership committees. As to what that system will look like, I imagine it will be diverse and continually evolving. APC models, community investment models, academy-controlled and supported infrastructure, the evolution of preprint and other forms of early dissemination to accommodate new models of peer review and validation, will all be part of the mix. Which of those models will win out, and in which disciplines or communities, will involve a process of discovery and experimentation among all stakeholders. We’re all engaged in a fascinating journey whose unfolding we have an opportunity to influence, but the ultimate shape of which will only be fully known in hindsight. This doesn’t mean that our goals, or intended actions, should be interpreted as modest or moderate in any meaningful sense. Ivy Anderson