[GOAL] [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
Florence Piron
Florence.Piron at scienceetbiencommun.org
Wed Apr 22 01:52:53 BST 2020
Thank you Sam for this really nuanced view of open access, as usual.
As an outsider (francophone from Quebec, working mainly in francophone
Africa, founder of an independant not for profit open access press), let
me have some fun by trying a sport metaphor to express my view of the
debate. Bear with my broken English.
It seems to me that Glenn's project (and many open science "projects")
is like the NFL (National Football League) : for US citizens and some
lost Canadian male ones, it is the biggest thing, gathering all the best
players, the best games, the best abilities and so on : high-level. But
for much of the rest of the world, especially women, it is not very
interesting, rather incomprehensible, brutal and ugly. (My son plays
American football, but will never read this!). For me, having quite a
reasonable academic career in my world without having ever published in
an Elsevier or Big for profit publisher journal (but having been
recently quoted in a Geoforum (Elsevier) paper entitled "Open access
publication: Academic colonialism or knowledge philanthropy?"), the open
access world that is frequently described and discussed in discussion
lists of OA experts/actors is a sort of NFL - where the name "world
champions" is totally meaningless unless the world is reduced to the US.
The NHL (National Hockey league) is a bit more diverse because it
includes Canada and welcome some "strangers", players coming from
Europe, that far away continent where hockey is not at all the most
favourite sport (except for Russia maybe). For most of the people
(women) outside US and Canada, the NHL is still a very male, brutal,
exclusive, not so interesting world. In the OA world, some efforts by
outsiders raising unusual questions about the epistemology of open
access or web access, suggesting to dismiss Impact factor or to
"librarize" (nationalize in libraries) all for profit journals, are
sometimes heard, but are usually quickly dismissed as being utopist or
less important than discussing APC or investments.
The FIFA (International Federation of soccer/football) is much more
diverse and meaningful to the whole world, even if the US citizens
ignore it and name it in a way different from the rest of the world.
Soccer/Football can be played barefoot or with expensive gear, in small
localities as well as in big cities, in organized leagues as well as in
community neighborhoods. Still, every soccer player can play with
another from another country, because they recognize that it is the same
sport and that they love it. I believe that FIFA is close to the idea of
bibliodiversity that Kathleen is advocating. Still, there are a lot of
inequalities within the soccer world : still very male (even if it
changes a bit), still dominated by Europen teams that recruit the best
players from the Global South (soccer drain), still linked to money,
generating violence and chauvinism, etc. Bibliodiversity won't be the
end of fighting when so many disparities persist between universities
from the North and universities from the Global South. But it could help
creating more solidarity and mutual interest and aid. Will you try to
read the first papers of our 15 emergent open access not for profit
francophone African journals?
The recent UNESCO definition of open science is very interesting and
much closer to the FIFA than to the NFL, even going further than open
access... The roadmap for the UNESCO recommendation of 2021 can be a
valued tool for advocating a real bibliodiversity.
Florence
Éditions science et bien commun / université Laval
Le 20-04-21 à 05:42, Samuel Moore a écrit :
> Hi Glenn,
>
> Thanks for sharing this report with the list. I may need to read this
> again in more detail, but one thing I don’t quite understand is the
> focus on ‘high-level experts’. You write:
>
> ‘There has never been an inclusive, global effort to bring everyone
> together first—broadly, at scale and at a high, policy-making level—to
> identify common ground needs and interests, then collectively
> brainstorm options, and only then design specific policies and
> solutions that work within this globally operational and sustainable
> framework’
>
> I’ve always felt that one of the more exciting things about open
> access has been the influence of grassroots and activist strands of
> advocacy, or those that specifically foreground local and diverse
> contexts instead of broad-scale, top-down and policy-based approaches.
> Are you able to say a bit more about what ‘high-level’ means here and
> how your approach would preserve these contexts without imposing your
> common-ground solutions onto them?
>
> The reason I’m asking this is because your report mentions my work on
> openness as a ‘boundary object’, which is a term developed by Star and
> Griesemer to describe concepts that have both a shared flexible
> meaning and a nuanced local meaning that allow the possibility of
> cooperation between local groups. I argued that open access is one
> such boundary object because it means many things to different people
> but is broadly recognisable across contexts. However, the problem with
> introducing boundary objects into the policy sphere is that they
> become regulated and homogenised, simply because it is difficult to
> preserve local contexts in a global setting. This kind of
> homogenisation tends to benefit those with more power (in this case
> large commercial publishers operating at scale) at the expense of the
> bibliodiversity that Kathleen is arguing in favour of nurturing.
>
> I’d be interested to hear more on the 'high-level' focus of your group
> and whether you see it as antagonistic to non-high-level approaches.
> Put another way, are you not simply looking for common ground between
> the groups who are already in charge of scholarly communication
> (policymakers, commercial publishers, senior figures, etc.) to the
> exclusion of those operating at the margins?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Sam
>
>
> --
> Dr. Samuel A. Moore
> Research Fellow
> Centre for Postdigital Cultures
> Coventry University
> https://www.samuelmoore.org/
> Twitter: @samoore_
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 10:27 PM Glenn Hampson
> <ghampson at nationalscience.org <mailto:ghampson at nationalscience.org>>
> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> In reply to your statement, “that people with fundamental
> disagreements can agree on general principles does nothing to
> resolve those disagreements,” I deeply disagree. To my knowledge
> and experience---which, granted, appears to differ from
> yours---agreeing on general principles is, in fact, a prerequisite
> to actually resolving disagreements as opposed to just papering
> over them. I would be happy to debate this with you off-list. I
> don’t want to exhaust the good will of our audience here (if we
> haven’t already).
>
> But to elaborate, from page 18 of the paper (the long version):
> “….common ground is a unique, "expanded pie" state. It isn't a
> grand compromise where we manage to divide a static pie into
> smaller, less satisfying slices, but creating a larger pie where
> new value is available throughout the system. In this case, then,
> common ground doesn't mean seeking a compromise between embargoes
> and immediate release; or between APCs and subscriptions; or
> between publish or perish culture in academia and something a
> little kinder and gentler. It means thinking beyond, focusing not
> on picking specific solutions but on understanding how our
> interests overlap lest we get weighted down by too many solutions
> or too many solutions we don’t like. By identifying the broad
> contours of common ground that exist in this conversation we can
> build the guardrails and mileposts for our collaborative efforts
> and then allow the finer-grained details of community-developed
> plans more flexibility and guidance to evolve over time.”
>
> Please note that examples of common ground perspectives from OSI’s
> five years of work are included on report pages 19-26, and also in
> Annex 1 (pages 39-53).
>
> Regards,
>
> Glenn
>
> *Glenn Hampson*
> *Executive Director*
> *Science Communication Institute (SCI) <http://sci.institute>*
> *Program Director
> **Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) <http://osiglobal.org>*
>
> <http://osiglobal.org>
>
> *From:* scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org>
> <scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org>> *On Behalf Of *David Wojick
> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2020 1:49 PM
> *To:* Glenn Hampson <ghampson at nationalscience.org
> <mailto:ghampson at nationalscience.org>>
> *Cc:* Thatcher, Sanford Gray <sgt3 at psu.edu <mailto:sgt3 at psu.edu>>;
> Kathleen Shearer <m.kathleen.shearer at gmail.com
> <mailto:m.kathleen.shearer at gmail.com>>;
> <richard.poynder at btinternet.com
> <mailto:richard.poynder at btinternet.com>>
> <richard.poynder at btinternet.com
> <mailto:richard.poynder at btinternet.com>>; <scholcomm at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm at lists.ala.org>> <scholcomm at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm at lists.ala.org>>; Global Open Access List
> (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org <mailto:goal at eprints.org>>;
> The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi2016-25 at googlegroups.com
> <mailto:osi2016-25 at googlegroups.com>>
> *Subject:* Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly
> Communications: A Call for Action
>
> This all sounds good but I do not see it working as an approach to
> conflict resolution. That people with fundamental disagreements
> can agree on general principles does nothing to resolve those
> disagreements. For example, librarians want lower costs but
> publishers do not want reduced revenues.
>
>
> David
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2020, at 4:46 PM, Glenn Hampson
> <ghampson at nationalscience.org
> <mailto:ghampson at nationalscience.org>> wrote:
>
> Most is annex material 😊 But I’ll send you the summary link
> when it’s available (hopefully next week).
>
> In the interim, the Cliff Notes version is that the entire
> scholarly communication community, large and small, for-profit
> and non-profit recognizes many of the same fundamental
> interests and concerns about open, such as lowering costs and
> improving global access; and the importance of many of the
> same connected issues in this space such as impact factors and
> the culture of communication in academia. This community also
> shares a deep, common commitment to improving the future of
> research, and improving the contribution of research to society.
>
> If all this still isn’t enough for you, read the paper (or
> skim it)---there’s a lot more. The key isn’t to find and focus
> on common ground on solutions right out of the gate (and
> inevitably end up arguing with each other about whose solution
> is best). It’s to recognize our common interests and concerns
> first, and only then start building out solutions and options,
> together. We’ve been skipping a necessary step in this process
> for far too long.
>
> Best,
>
> Glenn
>
> *Glenn Hampson*
> *Executive Director*
> *Science Communication Institute (SCI) <http://sci.institute>*
> *Program Director
> **Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) <http://osiglobal.org>*
>
> <image003.jpg> <http://osiglobal.org>
>
> *From:* David Wojick <dwojick at craigellachie.us
> <mailto:dwojick at craigellachie.us>>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2020 12:05 PM
> *To:* Glenn Hampson <ghampson at nationalscience.org
> <mailto:ghampson at nationalscience.org>>
> *Cc:* Thatcher, Sanford Gray <sgt3 at psu.edu
> <mailto:sgt3 at psu.edu>>; Kathleen Shearer
> <m.kathleen.shearer at gmail.com
> <mailto:m.kathleen.shearer at gmail.com>>;
> <richard.poynder at btinternet.com
> <mailto:richard.poynder at btinternet.com>>
> <richard.poynder at btinternet.com
> <mailto:richard.poynder at btinternet.com>>;
> <scholcomm at lists.ala.org <mailto:scholcomm at lists.ala.org>>
> <scholcomm at lists.ala.org <mailto:scholcomm at lists.ala.org>>;
> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org
> <mailto:goal at eprints.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in
> Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
>
> Glenn,
>
> It is 107 pages! In the interim, which may be long, here is a
> simple example. There is a sizable school of thought that says
> journals should not be published by commercial (for profit)
> publishers. Then there are the commercial publishers, who
> publish a sizable fraction of the journals.
>
> What is the common ground between these two large groups?
>
> David
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2020, at 2:26 PM, Glenn Hampson
> <ghampson at nationalscience.org
> <mailto:ghampson at nationalscience.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> I encourage you to read the paper and let me know what you
> think (on-list or direct):
> http://plan-a.world/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/OSI-policy-perspective-2-final.pdf.
> I apologize for the length of this---the summary version
> hasn’t been published yet.
>
> Best,
>
> Glenn
>
> *Glenn Hampson*
> *Executive Director*
> *Science Communication Institute (SCI) <http://sci.institute>*
> *Program Director
> **Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI) <http://osiglobal.org>*
>
> <image004.jpg> <http://osiglobal.org>
>
> *From:* David Wojick <dwojick at craigellachie.us
> <mailto:dwojick at craigellachie.us>>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2020 10:19 AM
> *To:* Thatcher, Sanford Gray <sgt3 at psu.edu
> <mailto:sgt3 at psu.edu>>
> *Cc:* Kathleen Shearer <m.kathleen.shearer at gmail.com
> <mailto:m.kathleen.shearer at gmail.com>>;
> richard.poynder at btinternet.com
> <mailto:richard.poynder at btinternet.com>;
> scholcomm at lists.ala.org <mailto:scholcomm at lists.ala.org>;
> Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)
> <goal at eprints.org <mailto:goal at eprints.org>>; Glenn
> Hampson <ghampson at nationalscience.org
> <mailto:ghampson at nationalscience.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in
> Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
>
> I suspect there are lots of limits to common ground. In
> fact the hypothesis that there is significant common
> ground strikes me as untested, much less proven,
> especially if one includes the more radical positions.
>
> David Wojick
>
>
> On Apr 20, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Thatcher, Sanford Gray
> <sgt3 at psu.edu <mailto:sgt3 at psu.edu>> wrote:
>
> I have two brief comments to add to this thread.
>
> 1) On the question of translation, ir strikes me that
> automatic translation, however imperfect, could be
> satisfactory for certain scholarly purposes but not
> others. We don;t always need an elegant translation
> to get the gist of what is being said, and that may
> suffice for certain purposes, say, in background
> reading. On the other hand, I have always opposed the
> CC BY license as inadequate it deprives the author of
> control over quality in translation, which is VERY
> important to scholars at least in the HSS fields, if
> not in all. Once a poor translation is done,
> motivation (especially market-based) declines for
> doing a better one.
>
> 2) As for "common ground," of course there is common
> ground to be found amongst all types of publishers,
> but I see a fundamental "divide" between nonprofit and
> for-profit publishers in that at least one potentially
> key avenue toward open access, viz., endowment
> funding, is available to nonprofits in a way it is not
> to for-profit publishers. Both nonprofit and
> for-profit publishers can operate on the basis of
> having the market mechanism be that by which they fund
> their businesses, but only nonprofits have these
> nonmarket-based alternatives (which also include
> university subsidies to presses) to explore as well.
> That is a basic difference that will determine what
> the limits of "common ground" can be.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org>
> <scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org>> on behalf of
> Glenn Hampson <ghampson at nationalscience.org
> <mailto:ghampson at nationalscience.org>>
> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2020 10:05 AM
> *To:* 'Kathleen Shearer' <m.kathleen.shearer at gmail.com
> <mailto:m.kathleen.shearer at gmail.com>>;
> richard.poynder at btinternet.com
> <mailto:richard.poynder at btinternet.com>
> <richard.poynder at btinternet.com
> <mailto:richard.poynder at btinternet.com>>;
> scholcomm at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm at lists.ala.org>
> <scholcomm at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm at lists.ala.org>>; 'Global Open Access
> List (Successor of AmSci)' <goal at eprints.org
> <mailto:goal at eprints.org>>
> *Subject:* RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity
> in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
>
> Hi Kathleen, Richard,
>
> Can I suggest another way to look at these questions?
> First some background. As you know, the Open
> Scholarship Initiative (OSI) is launching Plan A today
> (http://plan-a.world
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fplan-a.world%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746486702&sdata=HqX4dQyCuH8rAVD32rhxqwt7FR9edEJf6s449J3X550%3D&reserved=0>).
> Plan A is OSI’s 2020-25 action plan, representing five
> years of deep thinking that OSI participants have
> invested in the many questions related to the future
> of scholarly communication reform.
>
> Plan A looks at the “bibliodiversity” challenge a
> little differently. For OSI, diversity has also meant
> inclusion---listening to everyone’s ideas (including
> publishers), valuing everyone’s input, trying to
> develop a complete understanding of the scholarly
> communication landscape, and trying to reach a point
> where we can work together on common ground toward
> goals that serve all of us.
>
> We have found over the course of our work that most
> everyone in the scholarly communication community
> recognizes the same challenges on the road ahead, we
> all have the same needs, and we all suffer from the
> same inability to see the full picture ourselves and
> to make change by ourselves. Fulfilling the vision of
> bibliodiversity will mean valuing everyone’s
> perspective of and contribution to the scholarly
> communication system, and truly working together
> across our real and perceived divides to achieve,
> together, what is in the best interest of research and
> society.
>
> OSI’s common ground paper provides a deeper look at
> this common ground and some of the approaches
> suggested by OSI participants. The summary version
> will be published soon by Emerald Open; for now, the
> full-length version is available under the resources
> tab of the Plan A website.
>
> My short answer to your questions, Richard, about
> practical matters like how all this change is going to
> transpire and through what mechanisms, is that for us,
> this needs to be decided by Plan A signatories (and
> will be). This effort is designed to tie into UNESCO’s
> ongoing open science roadmap work (which OSI is
> helping with). UNESCO’s plan will be presented to the
> UN in late 2021. The longer answer is that the real
> value in this conversation will come as we “expand the
> pie.” This isn’t about looking for compromise
> positions between read-only access and read-reuse, or
> between zero and 6-month embargo periods. It’s about
> truly working together on common interests, and
> thinking through issues in a way we haven’t before as
> a community (in a large-scale, diverse, high level,
> policy-oriented sense).
>
> I expect our efforts will cross paths in the years
> ahead, Kathleen. We would be honored to collaborate
> and contribute to your work.
>
> Best regards to you both,
>
> Glenn
>
> *Glenn Hampson*
> *Executive Director*
> *Science Communication Institute (SCI)
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsci.institute%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746486702&sdata=pmfSWmYaxAckqRIlpcTNQwDxCZaXo%2BOHnCs8PiDFma0%3D&reserved=0>*
> *Program Director
> **Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fosiglobal.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746496698&sdata=EzewH25bZr4En9p%2BrvhVI2upp4dC%2FxlIpXUQ0Gp%2FJ5o%3D&reserved=0>*
>
> <image004.jpg>
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fosiglobal.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746496698&sdata=EzewH25bZr4En9p%2BrvhVI2upp4dC%2FxlIpXUQ0Gp%2FJ5o%3D&reserved=0>
>
> *From:* scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org>
> <scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm-request at lists.ala.org>> *On Behalf
> Of *Kathleen Shearer (via scholcomm Mailing List)
> *Sent:* Monday, April 20, 2020 6:12 AM
> *To:* richard.poynder at btinternet.com
> <mailto:richard.poynder at btinternet.com>;
> scholcomm at lists.ala.org
> <mailto:scholcomm at lists.ala.org>; Global Open Access
> List (Successor of AmSci) <goal at eprints.org
> <mailto:goal at eprints.org>>
> *Subject:* Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity
> in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action
>
> 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.
>
> 3.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://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ouvrirlascience.fr%2Fthe-committee-for-open-science%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746496698&sdata=7Vgrf%2Bqq846jvR7%2Fk120ex0ydlB05WTOI5FhwfeAhTk%3D&reserved=0>
> 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
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coar-repositories.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746506694&sdata=9tj%2BvFPB2zBluwBvR%2F%2BjMY7ZZ39uTMPdL%2ByHRbj9HqY%3D&reserved=0>
>
> On Apr 16, 2020, at 1:31 AM, Richard Poynder
> <richard.poynder at gmail.com
> <mailto: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?
>
> 2.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?
>
> 3.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
> <mailto: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://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coar-repositories.org%2Fnews-updates%2Ffostering-bibliodiversity-in-scholarly-communications-a-call-for-action%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746506694&sdata=GmJtOEAK5Alb%2BxZxA%2F56XPAXwEb1M1aGpNIqjuN4I2Q%3D&reserved=0>,
> 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
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk%2Fpipermail%2Fgoal%2F2020-March%2F005395.html&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746516685&sdata=32VY%2BP9lU992c78uw7yKrXq4rCqbErCOiXmL0sPVYXs%3D&reserved=0> 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://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coar-repositories.org%2Fnews-updates%2Ffostering-bibliodiversity-in-scholarly-communications-a-call-for-action%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746516685&sdata=NI0KB7aMiy7FD724mBGTXt7BNOkZs3lRoQJqgs2SJT4%3D&reserved=0> and
> full paper here
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.5281%2Fzenodo.3752923&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746526679&sdata=Xi%2BI4xj9DZVaH2oX9G7T6buQtWrwNR4E25HuavhFXzQ%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Kathleen Shearer
>
> Executive Director
>
> Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)
>
> www.coar-repositories.org
> <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coar-repositories.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Csgt3%40psu.edu%7Cd37dad6aaa044f4fa0b108d7e53c5dc6%7C7cf48d453ddb4389a9c1c115526eb52e%7C0%7C0%7C637229919746526679&sdata=CegzIz25J80DpFbX3NygflAQVHKPknq8u8sc5jxOtxI%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> --
>
> Richard Poynder
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20200421/35003e2d/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3016 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20200421/35003e2d/attachment-0001.jpg
More information about the GOAL
mailing list