[Geo4All] [FORGED] Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations

Wed Jul 25 17:56:54 PDT 2018

I think Anthony makes a good point here that is worth listening to.  This letter is well intentioned, but I think it mixes up ideas.

Two point worth mentioning as follow up.

One: I’m an open source advocate, but I think picking on ESRI Press in this way is not helpful.  As I understand it, ESRI don’t expect editorial control of content when you use them and they have in the past published several GIS text books at a far cheaper price than any other publisher would offer—and in full color.  So yes, the branding is an issue from some points of view.  But being pragmatic, the result has been that many more people could afford to buy GIS text books.  This is not an entirely  bad outcome and the issue is far from being black and white.   (Though I concede that these days I don’t know why we would use any publisher at all since we should be able to publish free ebooks instead.). I also concede that from some points of view this gives ESRI a marketing advantage.  But I just wanted to point out that the impacts of this have not been wholly negative.

Two.  Repeatability in science is very important, but very difficult, though we should aspire to it and work diligently towards it.  Open source software has a role to play here.  But we are far behind the more successful practices used in communities such as genomics, computational physiology, particle physics and others that use fully repeatable computational workflow engines or Virtual Laboratories (and not just open source code).  We REALLY should be getting our own house in order before we start blaming others.  I can provide references if it helps here, but suffice is to say that all GIScience — including Open GIScience is a very long way off the pace of current best practice for repeatability.  The major problem here is that we have not built the more complex workflow systems needed to support open science, rather than because a vendor acts in a particular way.

I do agree with the issues around pseudoscience, weak science and commercially-sponsored science.  These are directly harmful and where we see EVIDENCE of these practices, we need to call them out.

I read somewhere recently that the difference between a prophet and a zealot is that a prophet chastises because (s)he loves the community, whereas a zealot chastises because (s)he loves to chastise.  Lets be careful how we come over, or our important message will fall on deaf ears.

mark
__
Prof. Mark Gahegan
Centre for eResearch & Department of Computer Science U. Auckland

On 25/07/2018, at 9:25 AM, María Arias de Reyna <delawen at gmail.com<mailto:delawen at gmail.com>> wrote:

Hi,

I can't agree more with you :)

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:53 AM, Suchith Anand <Suchith.Anand at nottingham.ac.uk<mailto:Suchith.Anand at nottingham.ac.uk>> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

I have prepared a draft letter with my ideas/suggestions .I am just a volunteer and I feel sad that  that I have to raise this issue through an open letter.  But if I remain silent on this , I will be indirectly supporting the degrading of  independent peer review frameworks  for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations.

It is the fundamental duty of all Officers of Scientific Associations/Organisations  to always take steps to guard and protect independent peer review frameworks  for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations. I am hopeful and confident that that they all will do this for the future.

I am not a native English speaker, so please help refine this  letter correctly. I want us to look at the future not focus on mistakes made in past . Some mistakes have been made and I understand that this is corrected. We are all human , so we all make mistakes  . So let us not focus on past mistakes but look at ideas on how we can strengthen the independent peer review frameworks  for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations in the future.

The International Cartographic Association (ICA) is my organisation for which  I have volunteered for the last 15 years and continuing . I have great respect for everyone in this great global community . The SDG book is a community effort (not any individual’s book project) . I have requested from the start (as soon as I came to know) for openness and transparency in decision making for selecting the publisher. esp. as this book is on UN SDG . I understand that ICA has now corrected the mistake . Everyone makes mistakes and it takes courage to acknowledge and correct the mistakes .Compassion and forgiveness are important values .  I am very grateful that ICA has listened to my concerns and rectified this . So I don’t have any issues with ICA or any colleagues in ICA. We might have difference in opinions on some issues and having free and open discussions is in my humble opinion the best way to learn each others perspectives and find best solutions to move forward.

Please send any updates/modifications needed to the draft by 30th July 2018. I am on family holidays ( with no internet ) in first week of August, so I will aim to send this before I go on holidays.

===========================================

Draft of Open Letter on the importance to protecting independent peer review frameworks  for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations

Scholarly publications (edited books, journals etc) from scientific associations/organisations has  credibility and reputation because of strong independent peer review frameworks . We are very fortunate in the Geospatial domain to have many reputed Scientific Associations and organisations (ICA, IGU, ISPRS, IEEE-GRSS, IAG etc) who have over many decades provided strong leadership in advancement of geo science.

In times of fake news, science is usually one of those areas that can give us orientation and we can rely on.  Independent peer review frameworks  for Scholarly publications is among the foundations of good science. However, this is  obviously at risk now.   If a professional association takes  agrees to publish scholarly publications (edited books etc)  through a GIS vendor’s press then there is potential issues with independent peer review and ensuring scientific quality. It is only natural that any GIS vendor publication press to have vested interests in promoting their products and  agenda. It also makes it easy for the vendor to get endorsement for their  products from scientific and professional organisations using this route. Independent peer review is the fundamental aspect of science and we need to ensure all steps to protect this.

We are also now seeing a very disturbing trend with  some vendors even starting to trademark “ science” for marketing/sales of their  products and   “science” is being misused for vendor marketing/sales! . I have raised this issue through an open letter [1] .  Science is not a commodity to be marketed or sold by any vendor owners! I am very sad and disappointed to see this degrading of science happening. Scientific organisations should not endorse any specific vendor products etc as “Science” and take strong moral stand against  marketing of products as “Science’ by any vendor owners!

I am a volunteer for the ICA for the last 15 years and always done my best in my small way to support ICA . Around one year back, in the light of the International Map Year (IMY)<http://mapyear.org/>, the The International Cartographic Association (ICA) started an excellent initiative for  highlighting the value of cartography by “mapping” the UN sustainable development goals<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/>. Building upon this, The ICA community started work on a book on UN SDG Mapping  building upon the posters of the various commissions on this [2]. This is a great community initiative developed with inputs from all colleagues in commissions of the ICA. The Open Source Geospatial Commission colleagues also contributed our inputs for this. When the book project was announced, I did my best to contact colleagues to contribute to this in good faith. I didn’t have the faintest idea that it was being planned to be published through a properitary GIS vendor publication press!   As soon as I came to know about this, I did contact Menno -Jan with my concerns and requested him that as this is a community book project to please allow open discussions and keep the community updated [3] . I was very surprised that there was no open and transparent discussions on selecting the book publisher was done.

>From an email from Anthony Robinson on 16th July 2018, I understand now that ICA is not proceeding with the vendor GIS publication press (Esri press)  for the SDG book and I welcome this. But it is  important  we need to be learn lessons from this mistake and not repeat this in future. We are all humans and make mistakes.

I fully respect the right of individuals publishing their personal work [1] in any publication house that they wish. But as officers of Scientific Organisations, esp. in times of some vendor owners doing  marketing/sales  on “Science” , I request all colleagues to be careful not to do anything that will undermine independent peer review process.

I am suggesting some initial ideas that we all can take as a community to help reduce this problem in the future

  *   All Scientific Associations and organisations should ensure that there is full open and transparent discussions allowed before choosing any publishers of scholarly publications (Edited Books etc).

  *   It is important that GIS scientific associations/organisations take strong moral stand against taking sponsorship/royalty etc  for scholarly publications from all GIS vendors . Independent peer review system is the fundamental aspect of science. So I am humbly requesting all Scientific organisations to  not use   any GIS vendor controlled press for publishing scholarly outputs (edited books etc).  GIS scientific organisations should not take any sponsorship or royalty for scholarly publications (books, journals etc) from any GIS vendors . If a scientific association takes  agrees to publish scholarly publications (edited books etc)  through the vendor’s press then there is potential issues with independent peer review and ensuring scientific quality. It is only natural that any GIS vendor publication press to have vested interests in promoting their products and  agenda. It also makes it easy for the vendor to get endorsement for their  products from scientific and professional organisations using this route. Independent peer review is the fundamental aspect of science and we need to ensure all steps to protect this.

  *   Officers of Scientific Organisations and Editors of all GIS journals declare any conflict of interest with any vendors (funding/sponsorship/royalties  etc received from any GIS vendors currently or in the past) to ensure transparency and good practices.They should not support any vendors interest directly or indirectly. Scientific organisations should not endorse any specific vendor products etc as “Science” and take strong moral stand against  marketing of products as “Science’ by any vendor owners!

I am concerned with the wider degradation of science and education happening in different sectors. This is a moral issue and needs all organisations globally in science and education working together.

It is the fundamental duty of all Officers of Scientific Organisations  to guard and protect independent peer review frameworks  for Scholarly publications of Scientific Associations. I am hopeful and confident that that they will do this for the future.

Best wishes,

Suchith

[1] https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/geospatial-ig/post/open-letter-importance-scientific-freedom-and-public-good

[2] https://icaci.org/maps-and-sustainable-development-goals/<http://icaci.org/maps-and-sustainable-development-goals/>

[3] https://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geoforall/2017-June/003790.html

[4] https://esripress.esri.com/display/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&websiteID=254&moduleID=0

This message and any attachment are intended solely for the addressee
and may contain confidential information. If you have received this
message in error, please contact the sender and delete the email and
attachment.

Any views or opinions expressed by the author of this email do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nottingham. Email
communications with the University of Nottingham may be monitored
where permitted by law.

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:Discuss at lists.osgeo.org>
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
GeoForAll mailing list
GeoForAll at lists.osgeo.org<mailto:GeoForAll at lists.osgeo.org>
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geoforall
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/geoforall/attachments/20180726/7348dfc0/attachment.html>