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

Tue Feb 14 12:57:50 UTC 2017

I should have signed into the system before. I have registered myself and
it works now!

Sorry!

2017-02-14 13:46 GMT+01:00 Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio at gmail.com>:

> Thanks Fernanda for your interest
>
> I was told that Ethos is an open source repository of the British Library,
> is that not the case? (that would be more work to do)
> may require login but ti should be freely downloadable. also there is a
> link to a thesis in Strathclyde.....
>
> It would be terrible to learn that it cannot be  freely accessed it.....
>
>
>
> [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 6:08 PM, Fernanda Peset <mpesetm at upv.es> <
> fernandapeset at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/f6e51e5a/attachment-0003.html>