Many thanks for this, Melissa (if I may). As someone involved with the
open access "movement" (whatever that is) since the beginning, I can say
that the main goal was - surprise! - to improve access to the scholarly
literature. Stevan Harnad, for example, was very clear on this. right
from the mid 1990s.
Librarians sometimes approached the issue of access as if the only issue
were the steep rising costs of journals and open access were a potential
lever to rein in publishers' greed. This created many tensions amon OA
supporters.
The reality is that libraries, with research funding agencies, are the
main source of money for the whole scholarly publishing ecosystem, and
if libraries and funding agencies put their heads together, they could
significantly shape the open access and open science "movements" in the
way they collectively desire.
And various signals point to a gradual movement in that direction.
Jean-Claude
On 2024-03-06 12:32, Melissa Belvadi wrote:
> Whether you think it has succeeded (or is a work in progress on the
> right path) depends on what you think the goals were. Lately it seems
> to me that some people are moving the goal posts, which makes success
> hard to even define, much less measure.
>
> As an academic librarian, I thought the goal was to reduce the cost to
> our institutions of run-away journal price inflation. It has not
> succeeded at that, at least not yet. I keep asking my colleagues to
> have a conversation about what threshold of OA content in a journal
> package (or even single journal sub) would justify cancelling the sub.
> No one so far here at UPEI nor anywhere else that I know of has been
> willing to openly declare such a figure, or even come up with criteria
> for coming up with a figure on a sub by sub basis.
>
> Melissa Belvadi
> [log in to unmask]
> Make an appointment: https://mbelvadi.youcanbook.me/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Glenn
> Hampson <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 5, 2024 4:02 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [OPENCAFE-L] European Policy Shifts
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of UPEI. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe. If you are uncertain, please forward to
> [log in to unmask] and delete this email.
>
>
> *WARNING:* The sender of this email could not be verified and may not
> match the person in the 'FROM' field. Do not click links or open
> attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe. If you are uncertain, please forward to [log in to unmask] and
> delete this email.
>
> Hi David,
>
> This is an interesting argument, if you assume the open movement has
> succeeded. Many say it has not.
>
> Best,
>
> Glenn
>
> *From:*David Wojick <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 5, 2024 11:07 AM
> *To:* Glenn Hampson <[log in to unmask]>
> *Cc:* Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>;
> [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [OPENCAFE-L] European Policy Shifts
>
> Unfortunately I think it is rather the opposite. Reform movements like
> open are typically based on vague concepts which support agreement
> among diverse positions. When the movement succeeds to the point of
> implementation, as open has, these deep differences surface. But the
> common ground is still there, as you say. What to do about the
> differences is the hard part.
>
> David
>
>
> On Mar 5, 2024, at 1:13 PM, Glenn Hampson
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Indeed, a lot of a the disagreement in this space over the last 20+
> years has stemmed from unclear vocabulary. Do you support open? Sure!
> If by “open” you mean this and that, but not the other thing. Do you
> support reusability (CC-BY)? Absolutely, but maybe not the kind where
> I lose control of my work, so sign me up for CC-BY-NC-ND instead—or
> heck, is there something called “copyright” I can use? How about
> embargos? Sure---let’s drop ‘em, unless my work is tied up in patents,
> or clinical trials, or humanities…. Is publishing a business?
> Sure---in the sense that it needs to be run like a commercial entity
> (another rabbit hole) so it’s sustainable (quicksand), but not too
> profitable (more judgements). The miasma of options and side effects
> has also been difficult to wade through. What about green, gold,
> hybrid, and diamond (all with their pros and cons)? What about
> non-journal options? Unintended consequences (to whom)? Predatory
> journals (not to everyone)? Peer review (whose version)? IP theft
> (heroic to some)? Impact evaluation (which governments and publishers
> love)? Long-term vision (whose vision)? And so on.
>
> To me, anyway, vocabulary and miasma have made combatants out of
> colleagues. We spend so much time defending our definitions and
> positions that we lose sight of our common goals and common ground.
>
> *From:*OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Rick
> Anderson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 5, 2024 8:25 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [OPENCAFE-L] European Policy Shifts
>
> I think part of the problem is ambiguity around the word “commercial.”
> Sometimes people use it to mean “for-profit” and sometimes they use it
> to mean “involving a product or service for sale.” By the former
> definition, PLOS (to take one example) is a noncommercial entity; by
> the latter, it’s a commercial entity. If we aren’t certain we’re all
> using the word to mean the same thing, the conversation is tough.
>
> ---
>
> Rick Anderson
>
> University Librarian
>
> Brigham Young University
>
> (801) 422-4301
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> *From: *OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Hugh
> Jarvis <[log in to unmask]>
> *Reply-To: *Hugh Jarvis <[log in to unmask]>
> *Date: *Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 9:21 AM
> *To: *"[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject: *Re: [OPENCAFE-L] European Policy Shifts
>
> This is an interesting philosophical angle to discuss. I suspect we
> have a nice audience here.
>
> Can anyone provide an example of a publication or scholarly endeavor
> that is not "entangled" by "commercial imperatives" of some form..?
>
> I've produced "zero budget" publications myself... but only because my
> university subsidized the platform they were on and I contributed my
> labor (which was underwritten by my day job). And when these
> volunteer projects encroached on my job, or the university cut their
> support, I was forced to cut them back.
>
> Artists and scholars historically have been endowed in some manner, by
> a benefactor, grant, independent wealth..., but I don't believe that
> means they were independent of any commercial imperatives.
>
> Certainly it is possible to minimize these imperatives to allow as
> much scholarly freedom as possible, but I believe there is always a
> bottom line.
>
> I'm not attacking Jean-Claude here. I support their idealism, but not
> sure it is a reality.
>
> Best,
>
> Hugh Jarvis
>
> University at Buffalo
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 05:47:06 -0500
>
> From: Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>
> Subject: Re: European Policy Shifts
>
> Toby,
>
> I was not responding to the journal issue. In fact, I have the feeling
> we largely agree on this topic. What I was objecting to was the claim
> that you succeeded (whatever that meant) because you followed a
> commercial framework. I continue to believe that entangling commercial
> imperatives with knowledge production and dissemination generates too
> many negative distortions in the knowledge-producing processes.
>
> Jean-Claude
>
> On 2024-03-04 07:48, Toby Green (He - Him) wrote:
>
> > Jean-Claude,
>
> >
>
> > I don’t think anecdotes can ever be established law ;-).But there are
>
> > ~30,000 ‘anecdotes’ in Policy Commons, demonstrating that research and
>
> > knowledge can be shared - at scale - without journals.
>
> >
>
> <snip...>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
> <https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
> <https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
> [log in to unmask]
>
> --
> As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list
> can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's
> complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information),
> please visit https://groups.google.com/g/osi2016-25
> <https://groups.google.com/g/osi2016-25>.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to [log in to unmask]
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/DM4PR17MB60644CFF6F2AE1708BC319BFC5222%40DM4PR17MB6064.namprd17.prod.outlook.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/DM4PR17MB60644CFF6F2AE1708BC319BFC5222%40DM4PR17MB6064.namprd17.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
> <https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
> <https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
> [log in to unmask]
>
########################################################################
Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives:
https://listserv.byu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=OPENCAFE-L
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
[log in to unmask]
########################################################################
|
