The Open Scholarship Initiative
Working together in partnership with UNESCO to create the global future of open

The OSI listserv

The OSI listserv is at the center of OSI communications. Thousands of emails are exchanged by participants every year on a wide array of topics. This conversation is open for public viewing at https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/osi2016-25. The RSS feed is at https://groups.google.com/forum/feed/osi2016-25/msgs/rss.xml?

OSI listserv

RSS OSI Listserv

  • RE: [STS-L] July 2 Webinar - Open science and the reward system June 30, 2020
    Thanks Sara, Caroline, Steve, I’m just passing along meetings and news of possible interest to the group without passing judgement. If you don’t like the speakers or sponsors, don’t go. Easy peasy. That said, I think the people in this group are uniquely suited and qualified to contribute to
  • Re: [STS-L] July 2 Webinar - Open science and the reward system June 30, 2020
    Hi all - thanks to Glenn for adding me to the group and hello to folks I may not have e-met yet (looks like we won't be meeting in person for much until 2021!) My two cents on this is if the speakers are good and the content is good, I'm not fussed about Elsevier's […]
  • Re: [STS-L] July 2 Webinar - Open science and the reward system June 29, 2020
    Dear Steve and OSI friends, I know a number of staff analysts at Elsevier who work hard on scholarly communications in ways that make me trust the larger company. IMHO, Elsevier has been unfairly vilified for being a private, money-making company. I know there are many who do not agree with me on
  • Re: [STS-L] July 2 Webinar - Open science and the reward system June 29, 2020
    This is clearly an important topic and one that needs to be addressed. But do we need to ask what are the ramifications of this being led by an organization like Elsevier? (BrightTALK is advertised as Elsevier's Research Intelligence division.) Elsevier has not earned a reputation as an
  • FW: [STS-L] July 2 Webinar - Open science and the reward system June 29, 2020
    Of possible interest---aligning incentives is an approach this group been championing for some time From: sts-l-...@lists.ala.org On Behalf Of "DeLory, Colleen (ELS-SDG)" (via sts-l Mailing List) Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 10:50 AM To: scho...@lists.ala.org;
  • Global attitudes toward higher ed June 29, 2020
    Happy Monday Everyone, Times Higher Ed ran an article today about global attitudes toward higher education. Here’s the full survey: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/fulbright-survey-2020.pdf. There’s something in here for higher ed critics and supporters alike. For research,
  • Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models June 26, 2020
    It is not a matter of getting bogged down. The point is that the open access movement, like many social movements, includes a broad diversity of concepts as to what counts as success. In many cases these concepts are conflicting. In this complex context talking about optimizing outcomes is
  • Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models June 26, 2020
    Hi all, at this point two requests: 1. Can we now just coin a term that specifically refers to the good/evil polarity that constantly seeps into our discussions, especially around definitions of “open access”? 2. Affirmation of the new and useful thoughts that have reliably over the years become
  • RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models June 26, 2020
    I’ll conclude and sign off as well. My reply to this approach, again with all due respect, is that the *only* way to arrive at the proper “principles, governance structures, infrastructures, communities, and more that will be needed to create the optimal conditions for scholarship to be
  • Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models June 26, 2020
    Hi all, I don’t want to waste too much time going in circles, so just a short response: The resources below are different ways of conceptualizing open, not really definitions. They contribute to a deeper understanding of the concept of open, which is a good thing. The knowledge commons is a
  • seeking interview participants for NSF-funded study June 26, 2020
    Hi! I am pleased to introduce the STEM Training in Ethics of Publication Practices (STEPP) program. STEPP is a three-year project, supported by funding from the National Science Foundation, to conduct research and develop training on the topic of predatory publishing. We are now in the research
  • RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models June 26, 2020
    In part David, yes---thank you. But I’m also referring to: - Knoth and Pontika’s Open Science Taxonomy ( https://figshare.com/articles/Open_Science_Taxonomy/1508606/3 - Fecher and Friesike’s categories of concern regarding open ( http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2272036) - Moore’s
  • Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models June 26, 2020
    Glenn is drawing upon lengthy discussions of the problem of multiple definitions that we have had at OSI. Looking back I find that I first wrote about this issue seven years ago: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/11/11/open-access-on-the-sea-of-confusion/ It might be better to call them
  • RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models June 26, 2020
    Hi Kathleen, I agree with your conclusion---that “these diverse requirements cannot be supported effectively by any one large centralized infrastructure.” But as you know, I do respectfully disagree with continuing to characterize (as has been all too common in this community for too long)
  • Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Knowledge and Equity: analysis of three models June 26, 2020
    Glenn, all, I don’t think there really is a large variation in current definitions of open; but there are some stakeholders who want to slow progress, and use this as an excuse :-( The issue of diversity is an important one, although not in the way that it is expressed by Glenn, (which is