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

Tue Feb 14 12:38:06 UTC 2017

Hi,
I think the debate is pretty relevant in these moments. Paola, I would like
to access your Phd thesis, but my university is not subscribed to Ethos
online. Is there any place where I can get it?

Thanks to Heather to point out this issue,

Fernanda Peset
http://www.datasea.es
http://www.upv.es

2017-02-14 13:21 GMT+01:00 Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com>:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170214/32d0296a/attachment-0003.html>