[GOAL] A small, yet needed, correction to Glenn Hampson's claims

[Jean-Claude Guédon]

Apologies for cross-posting

Recently, Martin Hicks, from the Beilstein Institut, was kind enough to
signal my recent piece, "Open Access - Toward the Internet of the Mind"
on the Chminf list, and perhaps elsewhere. In response, Glenn Hampson,
from the Open Scholarship Institute, sent the following response:

Thanks for sharing this
 Martin. Jean-Claude Guedon has obviously been an important part of the

open access movement. Unbeknownst to many, he also played an important 

role in helping launch the Open Scholarship Initiative (although he 
might be reluctant to admit this judging by his prose!).
 
OSI
 delegates have a broad range of opinions on the many issues he 
discusses here, and about the direction of open access in general. And
I
 think we all admire Professor Guedon’s idealism and the work he and 
others have done to raise society’s collective awareness of the open 
issue.
 
Speaking
 only for myself, though, I don’t find it particularly helpful to 
continue to portray BOAI as the current epicenter of the open effort 
when in fact BOAI did not (and does not) represent a broad cross-
section
 of ideas and perspectives. That the world has become only 15% open 
after 15 years of BOAI suggests to many that we should try a different 

approach to open, and this should be viewed as a good thing, not as a 
threat. If we all agree that more open is worth achieving, then working

together toward a common goal might be an approach well worth 
exploring---and may ultimately be more successful than adhering to the 

one true path defined when we knew far less about the difficulties 
involved, how technology would change, how the market would react, and 

so on. We can use this new knowledge to our advantage to construct new 

solutions to open that actually work.
 
And
 this, I think, is where you are all positioned with OSI---every bit as

idealistic as Jean-Claude, but maybe more pragmatic in trying to 
identify these open goals as a group, and then involving everyone in 
figuring out how to get there from here, not in a way that maximizes 
profits and dilutes outcomes, but in a way that is fast, fair, clear, 
equitable, broad, effective, efficient, and yes---sustainable (a term 
which in not fairly or accurately defined in this paper).
 
I
 hope Jean-Claude can rejoin the OSI conversation at some point---a 
conversation he helped create after all. I think his idealism is 
important. He’s not going to change his mind anytime soon, nor would I 

want him to, but he speaks well for many people in OSI and his voice is

an important one to hear.
 
Thanks again for sharing this Martin,
 
Glenn 

I need to add a few corrections to Mr. Hampson's note.
1. I did not help launch the Open Scholarship Initiative; for a while, I merely participated in an on-line discussion related to the crafting of a document pertaining to some form of openness and that appeared in 2015. Relatively quickly, I became frustrated by a discussion style that I would characterize as "muddying the waters". When the organizers decided to close the debate, I refrained from endorsing the result, as I did not feel in agreement with it. This did not prevent the same organizers to cite me several times in this document.

2. I do not consider myself as an idealist, unless starting from principled premises be considered to be a form of idealism; instead, I see myself as someone trying to sharpen concepts so as to clarify perspectives. 

3. BOAI is not the epicentre of what open access/open science is nowadays; however, it remains its first, seminal, form of expression and its reach remains as alive today as it did back in 2002. Many people still refer to it as the best definition and description of what open access is all about. Peter Suber, after a couple of months' discussion on-line, and with great stylistic skills, managed to produce an elegant, concise, strong, and eloquent, expression of what could be imagined as Open Access - and I will use capital letters to refer to this from now on -  around 2001-2. What is amazing is how good this expression still is and it acts like a good compass that points to the true North.

4. Even assuming or accepting that the world of science is only 15% open after 15 years of efforts, it does not follow that this requires a "different approach". First of all, BOAI is not an approach, but a definition followed by two possible strategies presented most generically: either create or flip journals into open access journals, or self-archive one's own publication is a suitable repository. Within these two very general strategies, many approaches have been explored or are being explored. Some supporters of Open Access have held more rigid views of the best path to success, but the Open Access movement, by contrast, has held a rich, vibrant, discussion about the best ways to proceed. This discussion continues to this day.

5. It is obvious that supporters of Open Access generally agree that more openness is worth achieving. Mr. Hampson's remark here is anything but incomprehensible. Open Access is not the mode of expression of a closed sect. Moreover, having a clear conception of what the objective should ultimately look like is not an expression of rigidity, but rather an attempt to maintain reliable bearings in order to move forward. Think the "compass" metaphor, once more!

6. The attempt to recruit people to OSI is somewhat amusing. I assume people in the research communities are adult enough to determine whether they agree with whatever OSI is offering and whether they want to support OSI's viewpoint. However, before they do so, and because these people too are pragmatic, they will insist on knowing OSI's impact better. From my perspective, I must say that I do not see OSI's alleged difference is making any significant difference (to echo the formulation of the Palo Alto school of communication).

7. As for "rejoining" OSI - as if I had even "joined" OSI - Mr. Hampson should simply consider that people within OSI can either read what I publish, or contact me individually. I do not need to put a label on my back, especially when this label appears somewhat dubious and ambiguous to me.

8. For a while, I considered going to the meeting in 2016. I decided against it when I realized that the on-line discussion was losing all interest. Also, I had been invited to an important meeting of university publishers of academic journals in mexico, and I thought that that discussion was far more important than anything that could ever happen at the 2016 meeting. Retrospectively, I have the feeling I was absolutely right in doing so, for I learned really important things in Mexico.

Jean-Claude Guédon




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20170508/1e9179f5/attachment-0001.html