> 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.
This is a very common misconception among people who don’t work in libraries, and for some reason it’s proven very difficult to dislodge. The actual reality is that libraries are not sources of money at all; they’re conduits through which money flows. The source of that money is the libraries’ host institutions.
That may sound like a hair-splitting distinction, but in fact it’s an essential one, with fundamentally important implications. There are many, many librarians who would love nothing more than to redirect their institutionally-allocated funds away from the support of traditional publishing and towards the reshaping of scholarly communication. The problem is not a lack of “(putting) their heads together” (I can’t begin to count the number of times I’ve been rooms filled with librarians putting their heads together for this purpose); the problem is that the institutions from which the library’s money flows have other priorities in mind, such as ensuring that their faculty researchers can publish in particular journals, securing access to expensive content, etc. Relatively few of these institutions are interested in investing their resources in turning libraries into large-scale publishers of open content, or in otherwise underwriting the free provision of scholarly publications to the world. Whether these institutional priorities are right or wrong is an interesting question, but a separate one.
None of this is to say that there aren’t examples of libraries successfully redirecting money towards various openness initiatives, or that there are no examples of institutions that have made moves in this direction – obviously, there have been some very impressive examples of both. My point is that such initiatives exist and continue only when libraries’ host institutions support them. Because it’s the institution that is the source of money, not the library.
---
Rick Anderson
University Librarian
Brigham Young University
(801) 422-4301
[log in to unmask]
From: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Jean-Claude Guédon <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, March 6, 2024 at 1:07 PM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [OPENCAFE-L] European Policy Shifts
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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Make an appointment: https://mbelvadi.youcanbook.me/
________________________________
From: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Glenn Hampson <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 4:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 11:07 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Cc: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Rick Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 8:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
From: OpenCafe-l <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Hugh Jarvis <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Reply-To: Hugh Jarvis <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
Date: Tuesday, March 5, 2024 at 9:21 AM
To: "[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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.
---
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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]
########################################################################
|
