[open-science] Fwd: Let us denonce the pseudo-open Public Library of Science

Heather Morrison Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca
Tue Feb 14 11:57:32 UTC 2017

hi Paolo,

Thank you for this insight. It is possible that your analysis applies to PLOS. I do not know enough about PLOS to comment.

Here is how I read your argument: the remedy that you propose is change in organizational structure, to align policy and practice. Am I reading this correctly? If so, is this your remedy for PLOS or do you mean to argue for universal organizational change?


Heather Morrison

-------- Original message --------
From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com>
Date: 2017-02-14 1:26 AM (GMT-05:00)
To: open-science at lists.okfn.org
Subject: [open-science] Fwd: Let us denonce the pseudo-open Public Library of Science

Hi Heather

I have researched this kind of paradoxes extensively, including in my PhD thesis (2012) [1]

I have concluded that what you and I perceive as 'hypocrisy' can be called 'systemic deviation'  and ' pragmatic gap', which I explain charachterised and defined in some of my talks.

Fundamentally, the problem can be broken down to a lack of integration and consistency between the policies and the practice

The solution I propose to tackle this kind of paradox is a clearer and stronger integration between value statements (policies) and technical implementations (how things are done in practice), At the moment policy and practice are handled as separate things by separate departments in most organisation, using different logic - as if the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing

Organisational processes are deliberately designed like that, so that they can be double facing. This has to change.

Maybe work to be done


[1] http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.597113



Paola Di Maio

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Heather Morrison <Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca<mailto:Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca>> wrote:
For the sake of argument let us imagine that I am now convinced that we cannot tolerate any person or organization that is somewhat but not perfectly open.

I submit that from this perspective no one deserves to be denounced more than PLOS.

PLOS uses open licensing for their articles, but their software is proprietary and their terms of use make their highly protective approach to their trademark very clear.

PLOS' advocacy for extremes in openness is clearly hypocritical.

I denounce thee, PLOS, hypocritical, intolerant advocate of openness whilst actually a developer of proprietary software!

No doubt all the members of this list dedicated to denouncing the impure in open will reply to the list supplying this perspective?


Heather Morrison
Pseudo radical open cult member

open-science mailing list
open-science at lists.okfn.org<mailto:open-science at lists.okfn.org>
Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/open-science

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20170214/569234eb/attachment-0003.html>

More information about the open-science mailing list