Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in Scholarly Communications

“The Coalition for Diversity and Inclusion in Scholarly Communications was founded by 10 trade and professional associations that represent organizations and individuals working in scholarly communications. The Coalition was formed to discuss and address issues of diversity and inclusion within our industry.

A number of surveys in recent years have shed light on the lack of diversity in scholarly communications.  From issues of gender equality to the noticeable lack of ethnic diversity in our workforce, there is an increasing awareness that, as an industry, we are not a model of inclusivity. Publishing is truly a global enterprise yet that diversity is not reflected in our collective demographics….”

Attitudes towards open access publishing among BIPOC faculty Recruitment Survey

“This survey is intended to identify participants interested in participating in a focus group exploring attitudes towards open access publishing among faculty who identify as Black, Indigenous and/or people of color. The focus group will last approximately 90 (ninety) minutes and will be conducted online. This survey is completely voluntary and should take less than 20 (twenty) minutes to complete. All responses will be kept confidential by the two member research team.

Note that completing this survey does not guarantee participation in a focus group. The researchers are striving for a diverse representation of racial and ethnic identities. This survey will be used to identify a diverse sample of participants. Focus group participants will receive a $100 (USD) gift card. The nature of a focus group is such that confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. The researchers will provide participants with the procedures in place to maintain confidentiality of the research data and will inform participants not to repeat what is said in the focus group to others. This study has been approved by Adelphi University’s Office of Sponsored Research and Programs and Florida State University’s Sponsored Research Administration….”

Open Science Beyond Open Access: For and with communities, A step towards the decolonization of knowledge | Zenodo

“UNESCO is launching international consultations aimed at developing a Recommendation on Open Science for adoption by member states in 2021. Its Recommendation will include a common definition, a shared set of values, and proposals for action.

At the invitation of the Canadian Commission for UNESCO, this paper aims to contribute to the consultation process by answering questions such as:

• Why and how should science be “open”? For and with whom?
• Is it simply a matter of making scientific articles and data fully available to researchers around the world at the time of publication, so they do not miss important results that could contribute to or accelerate their work?
• Could this openness also enable citizens around the world to contribute to science with their capacities and expertise, such as through citizen science or participatory action research projects?
• Does science that is truly open include a plurality of ways of knowing, including those of Indigenous cultures, Global South cultures, and other excluded, marginalized groups in the Global North?

The paper has four sections: “Open Science and the pandemic” introduces and explores different forms of openness during a crisis where science suddenly seems essential to the well-being of all. The next three sections explain the main dimensions of three forms of scientific openness: openness to publications and data, openness to society, and openness to excluded knowledges2 and epistemologies3. We conclude with policy considerations….”

After Open Access

“The dominant model of open access is dominated by commercial values. Commercial licenses, such as CC-BY1 are mandated or preferred by governments, funders and policy makers who are effectively seeking more public subsidy for the private sector’s use of university research, with no reciprocal financial arrangement.2 Open access platforms such as academia.edu are extractive and exploitative. They defer the costs of publishing to publishers, universities and independent scholars, while selling the data derived from the uses of publicly funded research. As such they represent the next stage in the capitalization of knowledge. Commercial platforms are emphatically not open source and tend towards monopoly ownership. Presenting themselves as mere intermediaries between users, they obtain privileged access to surveille and record user activity and benefit from network effects.

A major irony of open access policy is that it aims to break up the giants of commercial journal publishing but facilitates existing or emerging platform monopolies….

Open access benefits commercial interests. The current model also serves to sideline research and scholarship produced outside of universities altogether, creating financial barriers to publishing for scholars outside of the Global North/West and for independent scholars, as well as for early career researchers and others whose institutional affiliation is, like their employment status, highly precarious and contingent, and for authors who do not have the support of well-funded institutions and / or whose research is not funded by research councils….”

Towards Global Inclusivity in Open Science | Zenodo

“Talk presented as part of the Organisation of Human Brain Mapping (OHBM) Open Science Special Interest Group Symposium on  Collaborative Science. Features interviews with Researchers connected to the Global South, describing some of the challenges they face around interacting with open science coming from the Global North.”

Building Bridges for Social Justice in Global Publishing: Seeking the Mexican Perspective: The Serials Librarian: Vol 78, No 1-4

Abstract:  At the NASIG 2019 Conference, the presenter outlined how the dominance of English-language publishers based in the Global North negatively impacts researchers in Puebla, Mexico. Universities in the Global South must compete in world-wide university ranking systems, which intensifies the pressure to compete with researchers in the Global North to publish in journals of the Global North in order to demonstrate global competitiveness and local career standing. To support those competitive publishing expectations, institutions of the Global South must also subscribe to English-language journal packages of the Global North, thus locking in a cycle of academic publishing dominance. Meanwhile, Latin America is developing quality Open Access (OA) alternatives. In May 2018, the presenter received funding from a NASIG grant to interview journal editors and librarians at universities in Puebla, Mexico. Through these interviews, the presenter sought to explore challenges for researchers publishing in Global North journals, discuss the role of OA at the interviewees’ institutions, consider the future outlook for OA in Mexico, and examine the social justice implications of the academic journal publishing ecosystem. The presenter reported on findings from the interviews and invited members to discuss how engagement with researchers from the Global South can help the global scholarly communication ecosystem become more equitable.

 

World-leading publishers join us in action-focussed commitment to make research publishing more inclusive and diverse

“We have gathered publishers of more than 4,400 scholarly journals and tens of thousands of books in a landmark commitment to reduce bias.

Publishers responsible for tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journals and books have signed an agreement with us to take a proactive stance against bias, as we commit to working together to better reflect the diversity of our communities and to remove barriers for under-represented groups.

The joint statement will impact scholarly publishing on a global scale, having been initiated by the Royal Society of Chemistry and signed by the American Chemical Society (ACS), BMJ, Cambridge University Press, the Company of Biologists, Emerald Publishing, Elsevier, Hindawi, IOP Publishing, Oxford University Press and Royal Society Publishing….”

World-leading publishers join us in action-focussed commitment to make research publishing more inclusive and diverse

“We have gathered publishers of more than 4,400 scholarly journals and tens of thousands of books in a landmark commitment to reduce bias.

Publishers responsible for tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journals and books have signed an agreement with us to take a proactive stance against bias, as we commit to working together to better reflect the diversity of our communities and to remove barriers for under-represented groups.

The joint statement will impact scholarly publishing on a global scale, having been initiated by the Royal Society of Chemistry and signed by the American Chemical Society (ACS), BMJ, Cambridge University Press, the Company of Biologists, Emerald Publishing, Elsevier, Hindawi, IOP Publishing, Oxford University Press and Royal Society Publishing….”

Long read | Science needs to inform the public. That can’t be done solely in English | LSE Covid-19

“Science, when communicated exclusively in English, risks not fully meeting its third mission, which is to inform the public. Never before have we seen this phenomenon as intensified as it has been throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Ideally health-related studies, measures, and responses can be produced and examined by scientists, professionals, governing authorities, and individuals with the benefit of time. In the case of COVID-19, scientific communities have been called upon to assert new knowledge that will satisfy a remarkably urgent dual mission. Doing that only in English will leave many people behind, write Zehra Taskin (Adam Mickiewicz University), Guleda Dogan (Hacettepe University), Emanuel Kulczycki (Adam Mickiewicz University), and Alesia Ann Zuccala (University of Copenhagen)….”

Long read | Science needs to inform the public. That can’t be done solely in English | LSE Covid-19

“Science, when communicated exclusively in English, risks not fully meeting its third mission, which is to inform the public. Never before have we seen this phenomenon as intensified as it has been throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Ideally health-related studies, measures, and responses can be produced and examined by scientists, professionals, governing authorities, and individuals with the benefit of time. In the case of COVID-19, scientific communities have been called upon to assert new knowledge that will satisfy a remarkably urgent dual mission. Doing that only in English will leave many people behind, write Zehra Taskin (Adam Mickiewicz University), Guleda Dogan (Hacettepe University), Emanuel Kulczycki (Adam Mickiewicz University), and Alesia Ann Zuccala (University of Copenhagen)….”