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

Tue Feb 14 12:21:14 UTC 2017

Heather
my conclusion were derived from researching to a specific research problem
- the lack of open data in publicly funded research despite full adherence
of the research councils.

So on the one hand, the research councils heralded full support to open
data, but I when to count the actual open data sets associated to each
research grant, they never heard of it.

The conclusions and recommendations however, seem to be universal, or at
least, apply to wide range of situations

when people say 'we do this' then when you audit what they do, they ve got
nothing to show. especially in social innovation. full of hypochrisy and
contradictions.

we then have to dig further, what is causing this ubiquity?

lack of integrated system view (with my systemist hat on) and transparent
accountable throughput function - I dont know how else to put it.

to answer your questions
yes, I think that only when an organisational processes are coherent from
beginning to end, we can expect the desired system functionality - in this
case accountability and transformation - (the opposite is true,
dysfunctionality. the product of lack of coherence, actually can kill)

My guess (hypothesis?) is that this applies to PLOS as well as to the rest
of the universe

PDM

[image: --]

Paola Di Maio
[image: https://]about.me/paoladimaio
<https://about.me/paoladimaio?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=chrome_ext>

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Heather Morrison <
Heather.Morrison at uottawa.ca> wrote:

> 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?
>
> best,
>
> 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
>
> PDM
>
> [1] http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.597113
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: --]
>
> Paola Di Maio
> [image: https://]about.me/paoladimaio
>
> <https://about.me/paoladimaio?promo=email_sig&utm_source=product&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=chrome_ext>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Heather Morrison <
> 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?
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Heather Morrison
>> Pseudo radical open cult member
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-science/attachments/20170214/a3769b97/attachment-0003.html>