<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoAcetate, li.MsoAcetate, div.MsoAcetate
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text Char";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:8.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.BalloonTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Balloon Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Balloon Text";
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif";}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="2050" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Hi Jean-Claude,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Alas, you’re replying to my message that was sent to only to OSI delegates (in response to one delegate who shared your recent work with the group) with a billboard to thousands of people, including lists where I don’t have posting privileges. I don’t know quite how to reply---I’m certainly happy as always to speak with you any time. The OSI effort is still young, of course---this impact you speak of is something we’re still working on. The last meeting—OSI2017---wrapped up just a few weeks ago and the papers from it won’t be out until mid-June. Our hope is that the ideas in these papers will be begin to lay the groundwork for the road ahead---tbd. They’ll be posted on the OSI website at osinitiative.org (the papers from OSI2016 are posted there as well). In the meantime, videos from OSI2017 are available on our YouTube channel at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWoUi5JsrjZfQw4fRdRuvNg"><span style='color:windowtext'>https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWoUi5JsrjZfQw4fRdRuvNg</span></a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>In the meantime, I hope you didn’t take offense at being called an idealist. I mean this with the deepest respect---the world needs idealists. As for your concern, I apologize if I misstated your involvement in OSI. You were part of the original group (the Open Science Initiative) that debated how to approach future debate on this issue (which led to the formation of the Open Scholarship Initiative)---you, Richard Poynder, Mike Eisen, Rick Anderson, Peter Suber (only briefly), David Wojick, Dee Magnoni, Joyce Ogburn, Joann Delenick, and about 100 others---but if I recall correctly, I think you, Richard, Rick and David were the main conversation drivers. And yes---not everyone signed the final OSI paper (here’s the link: </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><a href="http://bit.ly/1DJwRLT"><span style='color:windowtext'>http://bit.ly/1DJwRLT</span></a>).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I’m not sure how to address the rest, like our “amusing recruitment” (which falls on my lap, so I’m sorry if I’ve offended)---OSI currently has 380+ senior representatives from 200+ institutions, 18 stakeholder groups and 24 countries around the world (although, as Richard has rightly noted, we need more international representation, as well as more researcher/author voices, and we’re actively working on both). You haven’t been part of the OSI listserv conversations though---which totaled several thousand emails last year alone (much to the delight of some and dismay of others)---so I think you’re referring to the old/original list when you refer to the online conversation losing interest (I think anyone on the OSI list can attest to how rich the conversation has been, although one of our goals this year is to figure out how to make it a little more focused---maybe be able to peel off side conversations into other tools or forums).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Anyway, I am sorry to respond to you on-list here; I guess I’m relying on you to share my reply with your colleagues on the Global OpenAccess list and the OpenScience list.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>All the best,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Glenn</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#262626'>Glenn Hampson<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#262626'>Executive Director<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#262626'>National Science Communication Institute (nSCI)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#262626'>Program Director<br>Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#262626'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#262626'><img border=0 width=160 height=20 id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D2C819.EC45A310" alt=osi-logo-2016-25-mail><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#262626'><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#262626'>2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#262626'>(206) 417-3607 | <a href="mailto:ghampson@nationalscience.org"><span style='color:#262626'>ghampson@nationalscience.org</span></a> | <a href="http://nationalscience.org/"><span style='color:#262626'>nationalscience.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> scholcomm-request@lists.ala.org [mailto:scholcomm-request@lists.ala.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Jean-Claude Guédon<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, May 08, 2017 4:04 PM<br><b>To:</b> scholcomm@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci); openscience@lists.uni-goettingen.de<br><b>Subject:</b> [SCHOLCOMM] A small, yet needed, correction to Glenn Hampson's claims<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Apologies for cross-posting<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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:<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><i><span style='color:#1F497D'>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!).</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><i><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><i><span style='color:#1F497D'>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.</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><i><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><i><span style='color:#1F497D'>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.</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><i><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><i><span style='color:#1F497D'>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).</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><i><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><i><span style='color:#1F497D'>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.</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><i><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><i><span style='color:#1F497D'>Thanks again for sharing this Martin,</span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><i><span style='color:#1F497D'> </span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><i><span style='color:#1F497D'>Glenn </span></i><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>I need to add a few corrections to Mr. Hampson's note.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>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. </span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>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!</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>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).</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>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.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black'>Jean-Claude Guédon</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>