[GOAL] Fwd: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
Richard Poynder
richard.poynder at gmail.com
Mon Apr 20 16:11:05 BST 2020
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 at 16:04
Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly
Communications: A Call for Action
To: ACRL Scholarly Communication Discussion List <scholcomm at lists.ala.org>
Regarding Richard's question about the adequacy of translation technologies
- a comment and question for Kathleen:
Comment: although I am not an expert in translation, because I work in an
English / French bilingual environment, I need to translate on a near-daily
basis. Automated translation tools such as Google translate are very
helpful, however at minimum it is always necessary to double-check a
translation by re-translating back to the original language. The results
often do not match the intention of the original. English and French have
more similarities in terms of historical roots and borrowing of words than
many other language pairs. For this reason, I am sceptical of claims that
automated translation is or will be sufficient for scholarly purposes for
any language pairing within the next few years.
Kathleen:
You state that your colleagues assure you that translation technologies are
up to the task envisioned in the Bibliodiversity paper. In my opinion, the
required expertise to determine whether automated translation technologies
are up to such a task would involve expertise in both translation and the
subject in question. Expertise in translation for professional translators
is, I understand, determined on a language to language basis. For example,
in Ottawa a professional translator might be certified to translate from
English to French only, or vice versa; two-way translation requires a
double certification process.
Another way to explain this: to assess whether automated translation
technologies are sufficient for scholarly purposes to translate philosophy
texts from Portuguese to English requires understanding of philosophy and
expertise in Portuguese - English translation.
One way to fully appreciate the challenges of translation is to read the
translator's notes commonly found in translated monographs. It is not
unusual for a particularly common word in the original text to have no
equivalent in the language of the translation. This is one of the reasons
we borrow words and sometimes phrases from other languages.
Different disciplines have varying levels of standardization of
terminology. Sciences tend to be more standardized than arts, humanities,
or social sciences.
Question: who are the colleagues who have decided that automated
translation is sufficient, and what are their qualifications? This is
intended as a friendly question rather than a challenge. Is this something
we know, or something we need to explore? My guess is the latter.
best,
Dr. Heather Morrison
Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa
Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université d'Ottawa
Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC Insight
Project
sustainingknowledgecommons.org
Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca
https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706
[On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020]
------------------------------
*From:* scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org <scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org>
on behalf of Kathleen Shearer <scholcomm at lists.ala.org>
*Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2020 9:11 AM
*To:* richard.poynder at btinternet.com <richard.poynder at btinternet.com>;
scholcomm at lists.ala.org <scholcomm at lists.ala.org>; Global Open Access List
(Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org>
*Subject:* Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly
Communications: A Call for Action
*Attention : courriel externe | external email*
Hello Richard,
Yes, indeed, you are right, the coordinated actions required for
bibliodiversity are similar to the efforts needed to deal with the covid19
pandemic.
For your second question, the way I am envisioning the collaborations
taking place is as follows: much of the discussions across the different
stakeholder communities will happen at the national and sometimes regional
level, while the international coordination will take place, in parallel,
within each different stakeholder community. Although not a perfect
solution, because some countries are more cohesive than others, many
communities already have fairly strong regional and international
relationships with their peers, including scholarly societies, libraries,
funders (e.g. the funders forum at RDA), governments, as well as
publishers, and repositories.
1. Are translation technologies adequate to the task envisaged for them
in the document?
I’m not an expert on translation technologies, but my colleagues tell me
that for some languages the technologies are quite far along already and
work well (e.g. Spanish, French, Portuguese, Chinese), for others it will
take a bit longer. They are suggesting a timeline for most languages to
have fairly good translation tools available within the next 5 years.
1. Might it be that the different interests and priorities of these
stakeholders are such that joint action is not possible, certainly in a way
that would satisfy all the stakeholders? After all, funders got involved
with open access because after 20+ years the other stakeholders had failed
to work together effectively. However, in doing so, these funders appear
(certainly in Europe) to be pushing the world in a direction that the
authors of this report deprecate. What, practically, can the movement do to
achieve the aspirations of the document beyond making a call to action or
further declarations?
The point of this call to action is to raise awareness with funders and
others about this important issue. I’m not so cynical to think
organizational perspectives can never change. Strategies can (and should)
evolve as we gain a better understanding of the landscape, and adopt new
ideas and principles. We hope that this call to action will have that type
of impact.
And, yes of course not all interests will align, but we are already seeing
more cohesiveness at the national level than in the past. In Canada, where
I am based, for example, the funders, libraries and local Canadian
publishers are now in regular dialogue and collaborating to work on common
action items and to better align policies, funding and infrastructure. This
is also happening in other jurisdictions such as France with its Committee
for Open Science
<https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/the-committee-for-open-science/> and
Portugal where the national funder, universities (including libraries and
university presses) and scholarly societies have created and maintain a
national infrastructure for Open Access (hosting repositories and journals)
and aligned policies.
All the best,
Kathleen
Kathleen Shearer
Executive Director
Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)
www.coar-repositories.org
On Apr 16, 2020, at 1:31 AM, Richard Poynder <richard.poynder at gmail.com>
wrote:
“Designing a system that fosters bibliodiversity, while also supporting
research at the international level is extremely challenging. It means
achieving a careful balance between unity and diversity; international and
local; and careful coordination across different stakeholder communities
and regions in order to avoid a fragmented ecosystem.”
That seems to me to be a key paragraph in this document. And the pandemic —
which requires that information is shared very quickly and broadly, and
across borders — does certainly highlight the fact that the current
scholarly communication system leaves a lot to be desired.
I have three questions:
1. Are translation technologies adequate to the task envisaged for them
in the document?
1. How is it envisaged that researchers, policymakers, funders, service
providers, universities and libraries from around the world will all work
together, and by means of what forum? I know there are a number of
organisations and initiatives focused on the different issues raised in the
document (not least COAR) but how exactly, and by what means, will these
different stakeholders coordinate and work together to achieve the stated
aims? I know there are a number of library-led organisations (like COAR),
but is not a more diverse forum (in terms of the different stakeholders)
needed? How many members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S for
instance?
1. Might it be that the different interests and priorities of these
stakeholders are such that joint action is not possible, certainly in a way
that would satisfy all the stakeholders? After all, funders got involved
with open access because after 20+ years the other stakeholders had failed
to work together effectively. However, in doing so, these funders appear
(certainly in Europe) to be pushing the world in a direction that the
authors of this report deprecate. What, practically, can the movement do to
achieve the aspirations of the document beyond making a call to action or
further declarations?
Richard Poynder
On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 15:53, Kathleen Shearer <scholcomm at lists.ala.org>
wrote:
(Apologies for the cross posting)
Dear all,
*Today, my colleagues and I are issuing a “Call for Action!”*
With the publication of this paper, *Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly
Communications: A Call for Action*
<https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/fostering-bibliodiversity-in-scholarly-communications-a-call-for-action/>,
we are calling on the community to make concerted efforts to develop
strong, community-governed infrastructures that support diversity in
scholarly communications (referred to as bibliodiversity).
Diversity is an essential characteristic of an optimal scholarly
communications system. Diversity in services and platforms, funding
mechanisms, and evaluation measures will allow the research communications
to accommodate the different workflows, languages, publication outputs, and
research topics that support the needs and epistemic pluralism of different
research communities. In addition, diversity reduces the risk of vendor
lock-in, which inevitably leads to monopoly, monoculture, and high prices.
We are living through unprecedented times, with a global pandemic sweeping
the world, leading to illness, death, and unparalleled economic upheaval.
Although our concerns about bibliodiversity have been growing for years,
the current crisis has exposed the deficiencies in a system that is
increasingly homogenous and prioritizes profits over the public good.
Stories abound about the urgent need for access to the research literature,
as illustrated, for example, by this message by Peter Murray-Rust posted
<http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2020-March/005395.html> to
the GOAL mailing list on March 31, 2020
“My colleague, a software developer, working for free on openVirus
software, is spending most of his time working making masks in Cambridge
Makespace to ship to Addenbrooke’s hospital. When he goes to the literature
to find literature on masks, their efficacy and use and construction he
finds paywall after paywall after paywall after paywall ….”
For those who were not in favour of open access before, this global crisis
should settle the debate once and for all.
We must move away from a pay-to-read world in which researchers,
practitioners and the public cannot afford to access critical research
materials, or have to wait for embargo periods to lift before they can
develop life saving techniques, methods and vaccines. Access to the
research is simply too important. Yet, pay-to-publish, the open access
model being advanced by many in the commercial sector, is also
inappropriate as it places unacceptable financial barriers on researchers’
abilities to publish.
It is time to reassess some of the basic assumptions related to scholarly
communications, including competition, prestige, and the role of commercial
entities. The same values that underlie our research and education systems
should also guide research communications.
To that end, we are calling on researchers, policy makers, funders, service
providers, universities and libraries from around the world to work
together to address the issue of bibliodiversity in scholarly communication.
The problems we encounter have never been more complex and urgent, nor has
the need for solutions been greater. There is a real danger that new budget
constraints and an increasing proportion of funds directed towards large
commercial entities could lead to greater homogeneity and monopolization,
further hampering the free flow of research needed to address the critical
challenges we face.
Read the blog post here
<https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/fostering-bibliodiversity-in-scholarly-communications-a-call-for-action/>
and full paper here <http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3752923>
Kathleen Shearer
Executive Director
Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)
www.coar-repositories.org
--
Richard Poynder
--
Richard Poynder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20200420/fefd3aac/attachment-0001.html
More information about the GOAL
mailing list