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

  • closing argument January 17, 2020
    Hi Folks, I have two more comments on the open vs. open access debate and then I’ll rest my case. If someone wants to argue against this, please do. Would it then be helpful to then vote to see where we stand on this as a community? 1. With regard to public perceptions, here’s a […]
  • Re: draft guide for open access research January 17, 2020
    well said -- it is what often makes social sciences, psychology, and a lot of neuroscience research problematic. On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 at 7:39:22 PM UTC-6, National Science Communication Institute wrote: > > Regarding publishing a guide for conducting research in scholarly > communicati
  • RE: draft guide for open access research January 17, 2020
    They absolutely are Joyce---think Wellcome, for instance, which has a strong presence on both the research and the reform sides of open. Or all the people and groups involved in Plan S (which includes several researchers and research funders). There’s a lot of crossover between people/groups who
  • Re: draft guide for open access research January 17, 2020
    This confuses me further. Reformers and managers aren’t necessarily doing research. If you want to drop the conversation that’s fine but I remain unsure what and who the guide is for. The application you are advocating seems to be far beyond conducting research. Joyce Sent from my iPhone On
  • RE: draft guide for open access research January 17, 2020
    Yes---excellent analogy David---thank you. No one can prevent the colloquial use from being whatever it wants to be. I’m talking about the technical research definition. From: osi20...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 5:45
  • RE: draft guide for open access research January 17, 2020
    Hi Joyce, Yes. Here again we’re just talking about the research community (including our allies in open). If Joe and/or Merriam Webster or 3 out of 4 dentist want to go on calling everything open access, that’s fine. The intent here is to get the open reformers and managers speaking the same
  • Re: draft guide for open access research January 17, 2020
    Yes, treat the specialized definition as a technical research term. Like "heat" in thermodynamics, which is quite different from its ordinary meaning. But this still needs to be made clear up front. David On Jan 16, 2020, at 7:02 PM, Joyce Ogburn wrote: Now I am confused,
  • Re: draft guide for open access research January 17, 2020
    Now I am confused, if we are trying to address the problem in how the term OA is used in conducting or reporting research that is very different from trying to make everyone in any possible case of usage conform to only one definition. And I agree that to most people in common parlance open
  • RE: draft guide for open access research January 16, 2020
    I agree---I think that’s exactly right. And exactly the problem we’re trying to address here. From: osi20...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Rick Anderson Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2020 3:47 PM To: Wulf, Karin A ; Mel DeSart Cc: JJE
  • Re: draft guide for open access research January 16, 2020
    For what it’s worth, after spending a lot of time in these conversations with lots and lots of people over the past 20 years, my strong impression is that the great majority of people in the scholcomm space understand “open access” to mean “free to read.” Those who consider OA to include
  • RE: draft guide for open access research January 16, 2020
    Hi Karin, What you’re noting is perhaps the single most important reason why HSS has complained so loudly about open access---because open access means free plus CC-BY, and CC-BY in the humanities is pretty much a non-starter (as you note). So, all our open access work to-date has been trying
  • Re: draft guide for open access research January 16, 2020
    Hello, Not to barge into an intramural here, but I agree with Joe. In my field, in position paper after position paper, and in other arts and humanities fields, reuse is at best inappropriate. When people hear for read “open access” they mean “free to read.” I think within the confines of
  • RE: draft guide for open access research January 16, 2020
    Sorry Joe, but I disagree. I do not now, nor have I ever, defined open access as simply “free to read”. As far as I’m concerned, free to read = public access (which is what the OSTP Holdren memo required of government agencies). And my belief is that open access (regardless of which of the
  • RE: draft guide for open access research January 16, 2020
    I’ve honestly never heard anyone say this Joe---it’s new to me, and very interesting. Most of the people we work with in the open space---I would venture that includes most of the people on this list---would not agree with you. In any event, politically speaking, if one of our most important
  • RE: draft guide for open access research January 16, 2020
    Yes---my recollection of the umpteen studies I’ve read is that that happens most of the time to some degree. Some researchers are more careful about this than others, and some researchers just get the definition wrong despite the effort---it’s a complicated topic. From: Joyce Ogburn