[open-science] “After SSRN: Hallmarks of trust for subject repositories” - OpenAIRE blog post

Fri May 27 07:58:53 UTC 2016

Yes,
Count me in.
It seems like it's critical to immunize even organizations like CERN, EBI
and National Libraries and projects such as OpenAIRE.
The danger comes from at least:
* well-meaning members of the projects who haven't looked ahead to dangers.
* political interference (e.g. neoliberal government privatisation of
services).

We must think the unthinkable and protect against it.

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Mike Taylor <mike at indexdata.com> wrote:

> Tony,
>
> This strikes me as a very worthwhile thing to do.
>
> As a starting point, can I suggest Bilder, Lin and Neylon's (2015)
> Principles for Open Scholarly Infrastructures? I think they already
> capture much of what you'll want to say,
>
> http://cameronneylon.net/blog/principles-for-open-scholarly-infrastructures/
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> -- Mike.
>
>
> On 27 May 2016 at 08:34, Ross-Hellauer, Anthony
> <ross-hellauer at sub.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> > Hi Peter, all
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with all of this. I think we must take this discussion further
> now –
> > before heat over SSRN dies down again.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is a vital issue. I gave a Webinar yesterday on OpenAIRE RDM
> services
> > and one of the first questions was “how long until Zenodo is sold to
> > Elsevier?” Users confidence has been damaged in such services – even
> those
> > that are community-led or publicly-funded! We need a clear way of
> explaining
> > to researchers and others what kinds of services they are using and
> > guaranteeing they will have a stake in deciding the future of those
> > services.
> >
> >
> >
> > With this in mind, I am interested in getting together an informal task
> > group to:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.      Formalise/extend the list of the “hallmarks of trust” for
> > repositories/community platforms. My idea is that if we come up with a
> more
> > comprehensive list then we could publish it and ask users and others
> > recommending such services (like librarians) to sign up. This would be a
> > good way of furthering awareness of this issue.
> >
> > 2.      Audit key community scholarly infrastructures to see how they
> match
> > up to these “hallmarks” (we might be surprised).
> >
> > 3.      Linked to this, but perhaps a separate task, would be to more
> > closely discuss – perhaps with a view towards writing a paper? – open
> > governance and sustainability models for repositories/community platforms
> > (including legal locks, but also alternative models like the “platform
> > cooperativism” Heather Morrison has pointed us to).
> >
> >
> >
> > If anyone is interested in working on these questions together, please
> > respond either via the list or directly. It’d be great to hear from you!
> >
> >
> >
> > With best wishes, Tony
> >
> >
> >
> > Von: peter.murray.rust at googlemail.com
> > [mailto:peter.murray.rust at googlemail.com] Im Auftrag von Peter
> Murray-Rust
> > Gesendet: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 1:49 PM
> > An: Ross-Hellauer, Anthony
> > Cc: open-science
> > Betreff: Re: [open-science] “After SSRN: Hallmarks of trust for subject
> > repositories” - OpenAIRE blog post
> >
> >
> >
> > This is a very important post.
> >
> > I'm funded by the Shuttleworth Foundation as a Fellow (my project is
> > contentmine.org) and as a community we frequently discuss how our
> projects
> > should be protected to work for public good.
> >
> > One socio-legal device is to insert legally valid tools into our
> documents.
> > We have set up as a UK company limited by Guarantee, and also inserted
> > specific Open-lock clauses into our articles of association. These locks
> can
> > apply to what business we do, how we do it, the labelling.licensing or
> > outputs, the use of assets and particularly whether we can be sold and
> if so
> > what the purchaser would have to commit to legally.
> >
> > The important aspect is legal. With the best intentions in the world no
> one
> > lives for ever. Social-benefit companies often change orientation and
> > outlook (I think "ten-years " is often a critical period).  With legal
> locks
> > in the constitution monopolistic  purchasers will think twice or more
> before
> > trying to buy. (Without giving details I have direct evidence of this in
> a
> > similar project).
> >
> > Many (perhaps most) startups in this area see sustainability through the
> > goal of being bought by a larger company. I have nothing against this in
> > principle, but clearly SSRN and Mendeley have shown that there are social
> > problems in many cases. The model of "do something radically new" is
> great,
> > but "then sell to Holtzevier" comes close to Microsoft's "embrace,
> extend,
> > exterminate". This was bad enough in technology, but where the startup
> has a
> > social purpose it becomes unacceptable.
> >
> > It also raises the question of how a socially-oriented organization can
> > achieve sustainability without selling to monopolists.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 8:55 AM, Ross-Hellauer, Anthony
> > <ross-hellauer at sub.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> >
> > Dear list subscribers,
> >
> >
> >
> > Just to alert you to a new post on the OpenAIRE blog that might be of
> > interest to you, entitled “After SSRN: Hallmarks of trust for subject
> > repositories”.
> >
> >
> >
> > In the aftermath of the recent sale of the social sciences pre-print and
> > publishing community platform SSRN to Elsevier, I offer a personal view
> on
> > the nature of trust in community platforms and the need to make clear the
> > hallmarks of trust for subject repositories, namely open governance, open
> > source, open data.
> >
> >
> >
> > Excerpt:
> >
> > The issue here is not that the company has been sold, nor that it has
> been
> > sold to Elsevier specifically (though the fact that the buyer is the bête
> > noire of the open access narrative surely doesn’t help). There is of
> course
> > a place for private companies in the scholarly communications ecosystem.
> > Running a for-profit is undoubtedly very hard and for many small
> companies,
> > acquisition is their long term exit strategy. The issue here is not
> public
> > versus private but rather a wider one of trust. Services like Mendeley or
> > SSRN are ”social” in nature – built to a large extent upon the
> contributions
> > of their communities of users.  If communities of users bring much of the
> > value that fuels services like SSRN, why should they be content to take
> at
> > face value promises which might quickly disintegrate once they come into
> > conflict with money-making? Surely these communities deserve a stake in
> > deciding what happens to those services. Had users known that SSRN would
> > eventually sell to Elsevier, many would not have joined in the first
> place.
> > Now that they have, many would like to take their community elsewhere –
> with
> > former users like  Paul Gowder already discussing starting a new open
> > repository for the social sciences, for example. These issues lead
> naturally
> > to the questions: what does an “open repository” look like? How are
> users to
> > identify one, and upon which criteria should librarians and others
> > responsible for recommending such services decide whether a service is
> to be
> > recommended?
> >
> > See: https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=933
> >
> >
> >
> > Apologies if not relevant to you!
> >
> >
> >
> > Best to all
> >
> >
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dr. Tony Ross-Hellauer
> >
> >
> >
> > OpenAIRE Scientific Manager
> >
> > University of Göttingen
> >
> > Email: ross-hellauer at sub.uni-goettingen.de
> >
> > Tel: +49 551 39-31818
> >
> > Twitter: @tonyR_H
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-science mailing list
> > open-science at lists.okfn.org
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Peter Murray-Rust
> > Reader in Molecular Informatics
> > Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
> > University of Cambridge
> > CB2 1EW, UK
> > +44-1223-763069
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > open-science mailing list
> > open-science at lists.okfn.org
> > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-science
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science
> >
>

-- 
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20160527/d613b0ba/attachment-0003.html>