<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 15 (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:Nunito;
panose-1:0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:HelveticaNeue;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
line-height:normal;
page-break-after:auto;
text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
p.MsoFootnoteText, li.MsoFootnoteText, div.MsoFootnoteText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text Char";
margin-top:9.0pt;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:8.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:120%;
page-break-after:auto;
text-autospace:none;
font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:Nunito;
color:black;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.gmail-msolistparagraph, li.gmail-msolistparagraph, div.gmail-msolistparagraph
{mso-style-name:gmail-msolistparagraph;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:normal;
page-break-after:auto;
text-autospace:ideograph-numeric ideograph-other;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.EmailStyle22
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
span.FootnoteTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Footnote Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Footnote Text";
font-family:Nunito;
color:black;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
/* Page Definitions */
@page
{mso-endnote-separator:url("cid:header.htm\@01D61709.8CEBB390") es;
mso-endnote-continuation-separator:url("cid:header.htm\@01D61709.8CEBB390") ecs;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1131628079;
mso-list-template-ids:1587192972;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1564367880;
mso-list-template-ids:-1102011118;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-start-at:3;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2
{mso-list-id:1770198018;
mso-list-template-ids:-1636778560;}
@list l2:level1
{mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l2:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3
{mso-list-id:1965959095;
mso-list-template-ids:-1724342810;}
@list l3:level1
{mso-level-start-at:2;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l3:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4
{mso-list-id:2100708746;
mso-list-template-ids:-373677632;}
@list l4:level1
{mso-level-start-at:3;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level2
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level3
{mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level4
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level5
{mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level6
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level7
{mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level8
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
@list l4:level9
{mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</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>Hi Kathleen,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I wish you well with your work and am interested in helping. But if I may, I’d like to reply to two points in your email. The first is with regard to “ambition.” I think it’s fair to say that both of these efforts are on the audacious end of the ambition scale. Our view, however---which I think is more reflective of the broad, global scholcomm community---is that we shouldn’t predefine the end goal as being “full open access” because (a) not everyone agrees with this approach (many prefer some other state, like “more open”), and (b) open means many different things to many different people in the open space---open has been adopted and coopted in a wide variety of ways. So, saying in advance that there is only one true way means we may end up with much lower levels of open if we can’t get everything we want.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Second, I mention your “least common denominator” argument in the Common Ground paper. It’s a reasonable point for sure, and one that we’ve heard for years in OSI. Here’s an excerpt from pages 12-14 that tries to speak to this concern (the argument continues beyond page 14---this is just the intro):<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:middle'><span style='color:black'>… the central premise of this paper is that by building on the common ground we have in this community we have a better chance of developing the right solutions for the future of open research in the right order and for the right reasons, and that these solutions will have a better chance of being adopted and sustained and will allow the full potential of open to flourish. From this common ground, and with common global action we can not only realize the full potential of open but also solve all the connected issues in this space, from affordability to predatory publishing to academia’s publish or perish culture. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:middle'><span style='color:black;text-transform:uppercase'>A leap of faith?</span><u><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></u></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:middle'><span style='color:black'>Does it require a leap of faith to agree with this premise? Yes, most definitely. There are many brilliant and passionate experts in this community who believe common ground is a mirage—that only limited or unilateral actions will lead to global open reforms in the near future; or that global action has no chance of happening so it’s better to take what we can get; or that global action will only achieve “watered down” open that doesn’t immediately satisfy our most ambitious plans. Jon Tennant summarizes other perspectives on this leap of faith (Tennant 2020):<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:1.0in;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:middle'><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:black'>First, [there is such a diversity of principles, practices and outputs involved that] a single, unified, comprehensive and widely-accepted consensus definition [of open scholarship] is probably not sufficient (or even desirable), unless such a definition readily embraces this diversity (e.g., as the Open Scholarship Initiative seems to do). Second, there remains a need to rigorously define and enforce the philosophy, values, and principles of Open Scholarship, and explore how these underpin the practices, and to have consensus reached on this within the scholarly community. <br><br>This would address the lack of common understanding, which has impeded the widespread adoption of the strategic direction and goals behind Open Scholarship, prevented it from becoming a true social ‘movement’, and separated researchers into disintegrated groups with differing, and often contested, definitions and levels of adoption of openness (Tennant, Beamer, et al. 2019). Rebecca Willen has also identified that there might be two, perhaps three, different sub-movements that intersect in different ways, involving ‘open science’, ‘replicable science’, and ‘justice-oriented science’…. Alternatively, it could be the case that now, open research is diffused in such a wide variety of ways that there cannot plausibly be a single, cohesive community and set of practices that define it…. Instead, Open Scholarship, Open Research, and Open Science might best be thought of as overlapping/intersecting ‘boundary objects’ (Moore 2017) that represent this inherent diversity.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in;page-break-after:avoid;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:middle'><span style='color:black'>Broadly speaking, then, the difference in approach between the leapers and the non-leapers is that we can be inclusive or exclusive with our efforts—inclusive if we want to reach a broad, global, sustainable agreement; or exclusive if we believe that narrow, focused efforts are more practical, desirable and/or achievable. In the international scholarly communication community today, we see a large number of exclusive arrangements—from bilateral agreements between universities and publishers; to government mandates for domestically-funded research; to coordination between similarly focused advocacy groups or infrastructure groups (like those working to improve institutional repositories or editorial standards). These efforts are in addition to a vast multitude of unilateral reform efforts, from institutions creating their own one-off open access policies to publishers launching new open products and services to a new business ideas emerging featuring new approaches to peer review management (like F1000), pre-print standardization (using a framework created by the Center for Open Science), the brilliant SciElo network in South America (whose origins actually predate the open movement but which is constantly updating itself to stay robust and cutting edge), and more. This constellation of passion and energy in this community to improve the future of open is truly something to behold.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in;page-break-after:avoid;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:middle'><span style='color:black'>So why leap? Because this community’s effort to reform open research has for decades now been working backward from these exclusive, unilateral and/or specific solutions, trying to defend them, rationalize them, and/or knit them together. By design or circumstance, however, these solutions are often rigid and inflexible, meaning that integrating them—most often as an afterthought—into a tapestry of policies and solutions that work for broader audiences becomes effectively impossible. 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.<a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn1' href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>[1]</span></sup></sup></a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in;page-break-after:avoid;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:middle'><span style='color:black'>Our failure to work systematically like this as a community on the global issues and challenges of scholarly communication has led to a unique twist on the tragedy of the commons, where it isn't our <span style='letter-spacing:-.05pt'>inaction on common challenges that has led to problems, but the fact that we continue to act on these challenges in our own interests, or from our own limited perspectives, or with the sense that this is the best we’ll be able to do. Of course, practically speaking, taking a broad global approach to scholarly communication may not even be practical or prudent if large stakeholders—think the EU or the University of California system—are of the mindset that they have a legal and fiduciary obligation to do what’s best for their constituencies and not worry about the rest. But in this case, “the rest” can end up meaning the majority of the scholarly communication world that doesn’t have the power to craft such sweeping publishing agreements. So far in this debate, what happens in Vegas isn’t staying in Vegas but causing ripple effects throughout the scholarly communication environment. And again this isn’t so much of an issue if we’re certain these ripple effects will have positive impacts. We don’t know this, though. We do know that impacts are rippling everywhere. Where the system finds a new equilibrium is anyone’s guess as well as whether this new equilibrium is better than before (for everyone) or worse.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:middle'><span style='color:black'>This exclusivity and the resulting lack of inclusivity of ideas about the future of open has been perhaps the defining deficiency of most of the collaborative actions that have happened in our community to-date. Most of the discussions about open reforms have just involved libraries, publishers, a few funders, and a few active scholars, and have revolved around what open means and what policies we’ll need to get there from here. But there are many other facets to this conversation, and many other stakeholders affect and are affected by changes in the ecosystem; the scholarly communication ecosystem differs in significant ways across the globe and between researchers, institutions and fields of study; and there are many questions that exclusive action can’t address. Issues aside there are also broader ecosystem-level questions that need answering, such as what is our collective goal in pursuing open policies? What are we going to do with this information we’re collecting (and why)? Who is asking and answering these questions and are we sure the questions and answers we’re providing (via our narrow group of debate participants) actually represent the best interest of global research and global researchers?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in;page-break-after:avoid;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:middle'><span style='color:black'>To be clear the scholarly communication community’s limited and exclusive groups have collaborated over the years with vigor and success. There has been broad cooperation and collaboration between aligned interest groups, advocacy groups, groups with similar regional interests, groups with similar ideological bents and so on. This kind of cooperation and collaboration has helped push forward progress on open and raise the profile of the need for open. Also, as Şentürk (2001) noted, there is power in the fact that different parts of the scholarly communication community understand and adopt their own understanding of openness in different ways depending on their norms and processes. Neither of these dynamics—limited engagements or a variety of adoption paths—should change.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;margin-left:.5in;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:middle'><span style='color:black'>What is missing is that it’s unlikely only limited engagement and/or varied adoption paths will ever by themselves result in broad and comprehensive solutions to scholarly communication’s systemic issues. And these dynamics certainly won’t result in off-the-shelf global, universally-acceptable solutions or solutions that work for groups whose needs differ from those of the negotiating groups. It’s hard to envision a system more global and more integrated than research; global approaches are needed.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Best regards,<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Glenn<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:#262626'>Glenn Hampson</span></b><br><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:#262626'>Executive Director</span></b><br><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt'><a href="sci.institute"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>Science Communication Institute (SCI)</span></a></span></b><br><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:#262626'>Program Director<br></span></b><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt'><a href="osiglobal.org"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><a href="osiglobal.org"><span style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'><img border=0 width=116 height=42 style='width:1.2083in;height:.4375in' id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D61709.8CEBB390"></span></a><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Kathleen Shearer <m.kathleen.shearer@gmail.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 20, 2020 11:26 AM<br><b>To:</b> Richard Poynder <richard.poynder@btinternet.com><br><b>Cc:</b> Glenn Hampson <ghampson@nationalscience.org>; scholcomm@lists.ala.org; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Hi Richard,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I didn’t notice your question about cOAlition S overlap with COAR. There is probably some small overlap in institutional membership, but most of the COAR members are not funders and cOAlition S members generally are funders. That said, COAR and cOAlition S are working together in the area of repositories. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In terms of collaboration, I have been aware of Glen’s initiative, but my co-authors and I (as well as many others) have a more ambitious goal. That is, to move towards full, open access and at the same time support and nurture bibliodiversity. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>In terms of collaboration, I think the “big tent” strategy can too easily result in lowest common denominator, watered-down objectives as well as erase any local, diverse, unique perspectives. A much more effective approach would be (and I reiterate) to develop regional or national strategies between funders, universities, libraries and researchers + international engagement across each community (like Plan S for funders or COAR for repositories).<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>And, in response to Heather, of course the translation technologies are not perfect, but this is about having “good enough” tools to support global communications, while also ensuring local populations have access to their local scientific and scholarly output.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Best, Kathleen<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Kathleen Shearer<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Executive Director<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><a href="http://www.coar-repositories.org">www.coar-repositories.org</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Apr 20, 2020, at 12:40 PM, Richard Poynder <<a href="mailto:richard.poynder@btinternet.com">richard.poynder@btinternet.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Thanks for this Glenn, the fact that these two initiatives have emerged within days of each other without any apparent co-ordination (presumably because neither knew about the other one?) makes me wonder whether a new spirit of collaboration and cohesiveness is indeed emerging. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>I also wonder about the compatibility of the two groups. The Call for Action document appears to be a scholar-led initiative expressing concern about the role that what are referred to as the oligopolists are playing in the scholarly publishing space. For instance, it states, “For decades, commercial companies in the academic publishing sector have been carrying out portfolio building strategies based on mergers and acquisitions of large companies as well as buying up small publishers or journals. The result of this has been a concentration of players in the sector, which today is dominated by a small number of companies who own thousands of journals and dozens of presses.”<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>OSI appears to have been receiving funding from precisely these kind of companies, including legacy publishers and other for-profit organisations (<a href="http://osiglobal.org/sponsors/">http://osiglobal.org/sponsors/</a>). In fact, in 2019 it seems to have received funding only from for-profit organisations. Or am I misreading? I realise the sums concerned are small, but it does make me wonder whether OSI can really do meaningful business with the authors of the Call to Action. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>I realise you were anticipating “a few boo birds” on mailing lists on the announcement of Plan A (<a href="https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/osi2016-25/J9dJdeLyIng/0ryVgZ78AgAJ">https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/osi2016-25/J9dJdeLyIng/0ryVgZ78AgAJ</a>) , and perhaps you will view me as one of those boo birds. However I do wish both initiatives all the very best and I hope something good can come of them. My main concern is that no one has yet solved the collective action problem. <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>I also wish that Kathleen had answered this part of my question: “</span>How many members of COAR are also members of cOAlition S?"<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB>Richard Poynder<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> Glenn Hampson <<a href="mailto:ghampson@nationalscience.org">ghampson@nationalscience.org</a>> <br><b>Sent:</b> 20 April 2020 16:05<br><b>To:</b> 'Kathleen Shearer' <<a href="mailto:m.kathleen.shearer@gmail.com">m.kathleen.shearer@gmail.com</a>>; <a href="mailto:richard.poynder@btinternet.com">richard.poynder@btinternet.com</a>; <a href="mailto:scholcomm@lists.ala.org">scholcomm@lists.ala.org</a>; 'Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)' <<a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org">goal@eprints.org</a>><br><b>Subject:</b> RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Hi Kathleen, Richard, <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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 (<span lang=EN-GB><a href="http://plan-a.world/"><span lang=EN-US>http://plan-a.world</span></a></span>). 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. <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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. <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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). <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>I expect our efforts will cross paths in the years ahead, Kathleen. We would be honored to collaborate and contribute to your work.<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Best regards to you both,<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Glenn<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:#262626'>Glenn Hampson</span></b><br><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:#262626'>Executive Director</span></b><br><span lang=EN-GB><a href="x-msg://152/sci.institute"><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>Science Communication Institute (SCI)</span></b></a></span><br><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;color:#262626'>Program Director<br></span></b><span lang=EN-GB><a href="x-msg://152/osiglobal.org"><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:9.0pt;color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'>Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)</span></b></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span lang=EN-GB><a href="x-msg://152/osiglobal.org"><span lang=EN-US style='color:windowtext;text-decoration:none'><image003.jpg></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><div><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> <span lang=EN-GB><a href="mailto:scholcomm-request@lists.ala.org"><span lang=EN-US>scholcomm-request@lists.ala.org</span></a></span> <<span lang=EN-GB><a href="mailto:scholcomm-request@lists.ala.org"><span lang=EN-US>scholcomm-request@lists.ala.org</span></a></span>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Kathleen Shearer (via scholcomm Mailing List)<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, April 20, 2020 6:12 AM<br><b>To:</b> <span lang=EN-GB><a href="mailto:richard.poynder@btinternet.com"><span lang=EN-US>richard.poynder@btinternet.com</span></a></span>; <span lang=EN-GB><a href="mailto:scholcomm@lists.ala.org"><span lang=EN-US>scholcomm@lists.ala.org</span></a></span>; Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <<span lang=EN-GB><a href="mailto:goal@eprints.org"><span lang=EN-US>goal@eprints.org</span></a></span>><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:HelveticaNeue'>Hello Richard,</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:HelveticaNeue'>Yes, indeed, you are right, the coordinated actions required for bibliodiversity are similar to the efforts needed to deal with the covid19 pandemic. </span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:HelveticaNeue'>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.</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=gmail-msolistparagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><![if !supportLists]><span lang=EN-GB><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]>Are translation technologies adequate to the task envisaged for them in the document?<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>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.</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=gmail-msolistparagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo4'><![if !supportLists]><span lang=EN-GB><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>3.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]>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?<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:HelveticaNeue'>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.</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:HelveticaNeue'><br>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 </span><span lang=EN-GB><a href="https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/the-committee-for-open-science/"><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:HelveticaNeue;color:#1155CC'>Committee for Open Science</span></a></span><span lang=EN-GB style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:HelveticaNeue'> </span><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:HelveticaNeue'>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.</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:HelveticaNeue'>All the best, </span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt;font-family:HelveticaNeue'>Kathleen</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt'>Kathleen Shearer</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt'>Executive Director</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.5pt'>Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><a href="http://www.coar-repositories.org/"><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.5pt'>www.coar-repositories.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style='margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Apr 16, 2020, at 1:31 AM, Richard Poynder <<span lang=EN-GB><a href="mailto:richard.poynder@gmail.com"><span lang=EN-US>richard.poynder@gmail.com</span></a></span>> wrote:<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><div><div style='margin-left:.5in'><div><p class=MsoNormal>“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.”<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=gmail-msolistparagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='margin-left:.5in'><div><p class=MsoNormal>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. <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=gmail-msolistparagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='margin-left:.5in'><div><p class=MsoNormal>I have three questions:<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=gmail-msolistparagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=gmail-msolistparagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo6'><![if !supportLists]><span lang=EN-GB><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>1.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]>Are translation technologies adequate to the task envisaged for them in the document? <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=gmail-msolistparagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=gmail-msolistparagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo8'><![if !supportLists]><span lang=EN-GB><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>2.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]>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?<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=gmail-msolistparagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=gmail-msolistparagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.75in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo10'><![if !supportLists]><span lang=EN-GB><span style='mso-list:Ignore'>3.<span style='font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'> </span></span></span><![endif]>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?<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=gmail-msolistparagraph style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt'> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Richard Poynder <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On Wed, 15 Apr 2020 at 15:53, Kathleen Shearer <<span lang=EN-GB><a href="mailto:scholcomm@lists.ala.org"><span lang=EN-US>scholcomm@lists.ala.org</span></a></span>> wrote:<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>(Apologies for the cross posting)<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Dear all,<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b>Today, my colleagues and I are issuing a “Call for Action!”</b><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>With the publication of this paper, <span lang=EN-GB><a href="https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/fostering-bibliodiversity-in-scholarly-communications-a-call-for-action/" target="_blank"><i><span lang=EN-US>Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action</span></i></a></span>, 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).<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Stories abound about the urgent need for access to the research literature, as illustrated, for example, by this message by Peter Murray-Rust <span lang=EN-GB><a href="http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/2020-March/005395.html" target="_blank"><span lang=EN-US>posted</span></a></span> to the GOAL mailing list on March 31, 2020<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style='margin-left:30.0pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:5.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='color:black;background:white'>“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 ….”</span><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>For those who were not in favour of open access before, this global crisis should settle the debate once and for all.<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>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.<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>Read the <span lang=EN-GB><a href="https://www.coar-repositories.org/news-updates/fostering-bibliodiversity-in-scholarly-communications-a-call-for-action/" target="_blank"><span lang=EN-US>blog post here</span></a></span> and <span lang=EN-GB><a href="http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3752923" target="_blank"><span lang=EN-US>full paper here</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Kathleen Shearer<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Executive Director<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-GB><a href="http://www.coar-repositories.org/" target="_blank"><span lang=EN-US>www.coar-repositories.org</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><br clear=all><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>-- <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Richard Poynder<span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><div style='mso-element:footnote-list'><br clear=all><hr align=left size=1 width="33%"><div style='mso-element:footnote' id=ftn1><p class=MsoFootnoteText><a style='mso-footnote-id:ftn1' href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1" title=""><sup><sup><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:Nunito;color:black;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>[1]</span></sup></sup></a>. OSI is such a group but our design is to share information and perspectives, not be a deliberative body focused on developing solutions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoFootnoteText><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></body></html>