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.
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]>
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
To unsubscribe from OPENCAFE-L send an email to:
[log in to unmask]
Access the OPENCAFE-L Home Page and Archives
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.
---
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.