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: Today's Nature News November 25, 2020
    To argue against myself David, all publishers have noticed Plan S and pretty much all have made allowances for it in their plans for the future---what kinds of products they will offer, how they’ll survive, etc. So Lisa is right in this sense---Plan S HAS changed the world. But even before Plan
  • Re: Today's Nature News November 25, 2020
    I tend to agree with Glenn. Talk of change is not change. If, say, 1000 journals flipped in order to keep their Plan S authors then that is real change. But even that would be small, just a few percent of all the journals. Nor do the so-called transformational agreements change much, because all
  • Re: Today's Nature News November 25, 2020
    Given that there are tens of thousands of legitimate journals I doubt that the ultra low cost predatory journals have much influence on the top ranked ones. There is too much in between. David On Nov 25, 2020, at 4:43 PM, Lynn Kamerlin wrote:  Yes and know, the other way
  • Re: Today's Nature News November 25, 2020
    Many of the "predatory" authors are faculty at second tier, developing country schools with no grant money and low salaries. The difference between an APC of $3000 and $10,000 is probably irrelevant. David On Nov 25, 2020, at 4:39 PM, Biagioli, Mario wrote: Without
  • Re: Today's Nature News November 25, 2020
    Yes and know, the other way of viewing this is that it’s precisely because of the predatory and dubious journals that journals with an established brand can set their APC so high, because you are paying not just for citations but for a brand. Of course the fact that this will bankrupt many
  • Re: Today's Nature News November 25, 2020
    Without derailing the very interesting conversation, I'd like to add a new "branch" to it. It seems to me that Nature's pricing decision (and possible similar decisions by very high JIF venues inspired by Nature) may become mobilized to say that, relatively speaking, predatory journals (or
  • Re: Today's Nature News November 25, 2020
    This discussion brings very much to mind a comment from Michael Levitt (who has clearly been extremely successful by all metrics) about publishing in the 1970s. Back then, Nature/Science was not actually the place you wanted to publish, the dream was to publish in Scientific American, and that
  • RE: Today's Nature News November 25, 2020
    Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by “change.” It’s changed the conversation for sure, and kicked up a whole lot of dust, but as far as creating policy for inclusive, workable, lasting change, then no---it’s been a bust---at best a helpful exploration of options, but at worst a
  • Re: Today's Nature News November 25, 2020
    Plan S already changed the world. On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 1:32 PM Glenn Hampson wrote: > Making a Wojick Tree (sort of)…. Lisa, your replies are in red: > > 1. Plan S won’t work because this price point is ridiculous > - What does it mean for Plan S to
  • Re: Today's Nature News November 25, 2020
    Certainly on the way to a Wojick Tree, Glenn. You still need a top statement or question and maybe a level or two of responses to hang these subissues together on. That may be in the prior emails. Oh and your branching rate is a mere 1.0 so very thin. (This is how the tree […]
  • RE: Today's Nature News November 25, 2020
    Making a Wojick Tree (sort of)…. Lisa, your replies are in red: 1. Plan S won’t work because this price point is ridiculous - What does it mean for Plan S to "work"? 1. “Work” as in change the world. This isn’t a world-changing approach, though, so it seems unlikely.
  • Re: Today's Nature News November 25, 2020
    My off-the-cuff reaction: 1. What does it mean for Plan S to "work"? 2. Possibly. 3. Unlikely. Doesn't seem like they have to pay this to be in the Coalition. Three funders have already said they aren't paying APCs for any transformative journals at all. 4. What does
  • Re: Warm and fuzzy thoughts for Thanksgiving November 25, 2020
    Given that epigenetics is about molecular mechanisms, Glenn, that is pretty far from what I am doing. Mine is a form of behaviorial ethology in that it is based on behavior. But since I am attributing concepts and knowledge (those necessary to do the task) to the critter it is somewhat different.
  • Re: TLDR to the rescue November 25, 2020
    It captured mine pretty succinctly: “Bibliodiversity and Multilingualism in Scholarly Communications .” From: https://trios.pubpub.org/pub/del45l8w/release/1 -- Micah Vandegrift Open Knowledge Librarian, Copyright & Digital Scholarship Center Lead PI - Immersive Scholar NC State University
  • RE: Today's Nature News November 25, 2020
    So Lisa, what does this mean then? Has the precedent been established for allowing APCs that are quite comfortable or is this situation an outlier? If it’s precedent, does it mean that: 1. Plan S won’t work because this price point is ridiculous 2. Plan S doesn’t care about price and is