Helping science succeed
Helping science succeed

OSI Workgroups

OSI2016 and OSI2017 formed the foundation of our information-gathering efforts. These two conferences were build around the NAKFI deliberative model—the diverse workgroup model used by the National Academies Keck Futures Initiative. Each OSI workgroup from our 2016 and 2017 conferences was comprised of a diverse group of experts tasked with debating and reporting on a specific scholarly communication question.

What's the first step?

Once workgroups are connected via email, members introduce themselves to colleagues. The rest is up to the group. Groups are encouraged to start discussing ideas in advance of meetings and to to reach out to colleagues or organizers any time for ideas or information.

Think about a facilitator

Each workgroup is encourage to nominate one person who can take the lead on group progress and facilitation. Facilitation training is available upon request (this person won’t necessarily end up serving as your group’s facilitator, but they will be available to serve as your “resident expert” in the event your group needs to layer more structure onto your deliberations at some point).

What about writers, chairs, etc.?

Writers, presenters, chairs (if any), facilitators and discussion leaders are chosen by workgroups(potential facilitators are appointed or identified first, as noted above).

Expected outputs

Each team is responsible for putting together a five-minute slide presentation for the full group. Teams are also asked to submit a written paper within four weeks of the end of the conference. These papers and the official conference proceedings will be published. Both resources form the foundation of ongoing conversations—broadening participation, getting more feedback and refinement, and connecting this work to the development of solutions.

What do at-large delegates do?

At-large members drop in on workgroup conversations and also meet as a group throughout meetings to develop a big-picture overview for this effort and also report on any workgroup issues that might need to be addressed.

  1. OSI’S GOAL. The goal of the Open Scholarship Initiative is to create an effective, robust framework for discussion and collaborative action between a diverse array of stakeholder groups in scholarly publishing. Workgroups are an effective means toward this end, providing an intense forum for cross-stakeholder deliberation and planning. 
  2. WORKGROUP COMPOSTION & ASSIGNMENTS. OSI participants are divided into different workgroups, each focusing on different questions in scholarly publishing. The composition of these workgroups is balanced and diverse in order to incorporate a broad range of stakeholder perspectives and experiences and also encourage the development of new ideas and approaches.
  3. KEEP AN OPEN MIND. The perspectives participants share at OSI meetings can be individual thoughts as well as official institutional perspectives. Stated another way, while many participants are the top executives at their institutions, or have the blessings of their top executives to speak and act in an official capacity, they need not feel that they are only representing an official point of view or that what they say necessarily commits their organization to a particular point of view or follow-up action. Their overall guidance is to keep an open mind, worry less about selling solutions than trying to see the big picture, and be open to the possibility that views may shift and evolve over the course of this effort.
  4. ANSWER THE BIG QUESTIONS. The initial questions posed in workgroup descriptions are starting points for discussion. Each group IS free to explore other aspects of their question as it sees fit. The touch points of group deliberations are to: (1) Quickly summarize the issue and the various perspectives involved, (2) In more detail, describe areas of general agreement and disagreement between stakeholders and the knowledge, perspective and/or policy gaps that may be powering these different viewpoints, (3) Even if in rough outline form, propose a set of actions or outcomes that can balance the needs and interests of all stakeholders (or a mechanism for finding solutions or bridging gaps), and (4) Describe the challenges their proposal faces and how these might be addressed.
  5. OPERATIONAL DETAILS. Each workgroup meets several times for face-to-face conversation over the course of a meeting for a total of at least 5-6 hours. Online work also occurs. Each workgroup team is then responsible for putting together a five-minute slide presentation for the full group’s consideration. Teams are also tasked with submitting a written paper within four weeks of the end of the conference.
Names, titles and assignments as listed in program

OSI2016 Workgroup Composition


What do we mean by publishing in today’s world? What should be the goals of scholarly publishing? What are the ideals to which scholarly publishing should aspire? What roles might scholarly publishers have in the future? What scenarios exist where publishers continue to play a vital role but information moves more freely? What impact might these reforms have on the health of publishers? Scholarly societies? Science research? Why?

  1. Amy Brand, Director, MIT Press
  2. Ann Gabriel, Vice President, Academic & Research Relations, Elsevier
  3. James Butcher, Publishing Director, Nature Journals
  4. Jamie Vernon, Director of Science Communications and Publications at Sigma Xi and Editor-in-Chief, American Scientist
  5. Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Director of Scholarly Communication, Modern Language Association (MLA)
  6. Matt Spitzer, Community Manger, Center for Open Science (COS)
  7. Meg Buzzi, Director, Opus Program, UCLA
  8. Rikk Mulligan, Program Officer for Scholarly Publishing, Association of Research Libraries (ARL)
  9. Trevor Dawes, Associate University Librarian, Washington University St. Louis
  10. Vivian Siegel, Director of Education and Training, Global Biological Standards Institute, Vanderbilt University
  11. Winston Tabb, Dean of Libraries and Museums, Johns Hopkins University


  1. Andrew Tein, Vice President, Global Government Affairs, Wiley
  2. Harriette Hemmasi, University Librarian, Brown University
  3. Ivan Oransky, Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today, and Co-Founder, Retraction Watch
  4. John Inglis, Executive Director and Publisher, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press and Co-Founder, bioRxiv
  5. Lisa Macklin, Director, Scholarly Communications Office, Emory University
  6. Mark Parsons, Secretary General, Research Data Alliance
  7. Melanie Dolechek, Executive Director, Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP)
  8. Nancy Rodnan, Senior Director of Publications, American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB)
  9. Sharon Farb, Associate University Librarian for Collection Management and Scholarly Communication, UCLA
  10. Steven Hall, Managing Director, IOP Publishing


There is a broad difference of opinion among the many stakeholders in scholarly publishing about how to precisely define open access publishing. Are “open access” and “open data” what we mean by open? Does “open” mean anything else? Does it mean “to make available,” or “to make freely available in a particular format?” Is a clearer definition needed (or maybe just better education on the current definition)? Why or why not? At present, some stakeholders see public access as being an acceptable stopping point in the move toward open access. Others see “open” as requiring free and immediate access, with articles being available in CC-BY format. The range of opinions between these extremes is vast. How should these differences be decided? Who should decide? Is it possible to make binding recommendations (and how)? Is consensus necessary? What are the consequences of a lack of consensus?

  1. Alicia Wise, Director of Access and Policy, Elsevier
  2. Catherine Murray-Rust, Dean of Libraries & Vice Provost for Academic Effectiveness, Georgia Tech
  3. Denise Stephens, University Librarian, University of California Santa Barbara
  4. Diane Graves, Assistant Vice President for Information Resources and University Librarian, Trinity University
  5. Dick Wilder, Associate General Counsel, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  6. Kathleen Shearer, Executive Director, Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR)
  7. Martin Kalfatovic, Associate Director, Digital Program and Initiatives, Smithsonian Libraries
  8. Rick Anderson, Associate Dean of Libraries at the University of Utah and President-Elect, Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP)
  9. Roy Kaufman, Managing Director, New Ventures, Copyright Clearance Center
  10. Seth Denbo, Director of Scholarly Communication and Digital Initiatives, American Historical Association
  11. Steven Hill, Head of Research Policy, Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
  12. Susan Haigh, Executive Director, Canadian Association of Research Libraries


Tied to this question of who should decide the future of open access, who should have the power to make changes to scholarly publishing practices? Do these powers flow from publishers, institutions, tenure committees, funding agencies, authors, or all of the above? All of the above? None of the above? What are the pros, cons, and consequences of different institutions and interest groups developing and implementing their own solutions (even the one-off variety)? Is federal oversight needed? Global coordination (through an organization like UNESCO)?

  1. Adam Huftalen, Senior Manager of Federal Government Affairs, RELX Group
  2. Deborah Stine, Professor of the Practice, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University
  3. Ivy Anderson, Interim Executive Director and Director of Collections, California Digital Library (CDL)
  4. Joan Lippincott, Associate Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information (CNI)
  5. John Vaughn, Senior Fellow, American Association of Universities (AAU)
  6. Lee Cheng Ean, University Librarian, National University of Singapore
  7. Mel DeSart, Head, Engineering Library, University of Washington
  8. Ralf Schmimer, Head of Scientific Information Provision, Max Planck Digital Library, Max Planck Society
  9. Remi Gaillard, Head of Collection Management Department, University of Pierre and Marie Curie
  10. Salvatore Mele, Head of Open Access, European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)
  11. Susan Gibbons, Deputy Provost, Libraries & Scholarly Communication, Yale University


Does society have a moral imperative to share knowledge freely, immediately, and without copyright restriction? A legal imperative? Why or why not? What about research funded by governments? Corporations? Cancer research? For that matter, is our current mechanism for funding scholarly publishing just or unjust? What other models are there? What are the pros and cons of these models? What is the likelihood of change?

  1. Bill Priedhorsky, Science Resource Office Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory
  2. Cheryl Ball, Director, Digital Publishing Institute, West Virginia University
  3. Donna Scheeder, President, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)
  4. John Willinsky, open access pioneer, PKP founder, and professor, Stanford University
  5. Karina Ansolabehere, human rights and democracy expert, FLACSO-Mexico
  6. Medha Devare, Data and Knowledge Manager, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
  7. Mike Taylor, Software Engineer, Index Data and Research Associate, University of Bristol
  8. Ryan Merkley, CEO, Creative Commons
  9. Susan Veldsman, Director, Scholarly Publishing Unit, Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf)
  10. Tee Guidotti, President-Elect, Sigma Xi
  11. Wim van der Stelt, Executive Vice President, Projects Open Research, Springer Nature


What are the usage-related challenges currently faced by open efforts? For instance, open data is intriguing in principle, but in reality, making underlying data open can be problematic, conflicting with the need for research secrecy (whether driven by the desire to be first to publish, or the desire of funders to hold onto data to protect future discovery potential), the potential for misinterpretation by other researchers, and so on. Publishing clinical trial data in open formats is also intriguing but would run afoul of many current consent agreements, particularly older consents. Open access is similarly challenged in some instances by a conflict between which version of papers is allowed appear in open repositories. What is the value of archiving non-final versions? What are the range of issues here, what are the perspectives, and what might be some possible solutions?

  1. Amy Nurnberger, Research Data Manager, Columbia University
  2. Chris Erdmann, Director, Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysics Library
  3. Dee Magnoni, Research Library Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory
  4. Emily McElroy, Director, McGoogan Library of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center
  5. Éric Archambault, President and Founder, Science-Metrix
  6. Ginger Strader, Director, Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press
  7. Kevin Bradley, President, US Journals, Taylor & Francis Group
  8. Lorcan Dempsey, VP Research, Online Computer Library Center (OCLC)
  9. Michael Van Woert, Executive Officer and Director, National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation (NSF)
  10. Robin Staffin, Director for Basic Research, US Department of Defense
  11. Stephanie Fulton, Executive Director, Research Medical Library, MD Anderson


Are the scholarly publishing tools we’re using today still the right ones? Is the monograph still the best format in the humanities? Is the journal article still best in STM? These products can be difficult to produce and edit, nearly impenetrable to read, and—as in the case of clinical research information—they aren’t necessarily the best-suited formats for capturing every piece of necessary information (like protocols and datasets in medical research) and showing how this information is all connected to other scholarship. What other formats and options are being considered or used? What are the prospects of change? How about the stakeholder universe itself? How are roles, responsibilities and expectations changing (and where might they end up)? Are we “settling” on half-measures or on the best possible solutions?

  1. Adyam Ghebre, Director of Outreach, Authorea
  2. Elizabeth Kirk, Associate Librarian for Information Resources, Dartmouth College
  3. Frank Sander, Director, Max Planck Digital Library, Max Planck Society
  4. Geoffrey Bilder, Director of Strategic Initiatives, CrossRef
  5. Joshua Nicholson, CEO and Co-Founder, The Winnower
  6. Matthew Salter, Publisher, American Physical Society
  7. Melinda Kenneway, Executive Director, Kudos
  8. Nancy Weiss, Senior Advisor to the Chief Technology Officer, Innovation and IP, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
  9. Paul Murphy, Director, RAND Press
  10. Robert Kiley, Head of Digital Services, Wellcome Library


  1. Aaron McCollough, Head, Scholarly Communication and Publishing Unit, University of Illinois Library
  2. Alison Mudditt, Director, University of California Press
  3. Brett Bobley, CIO, National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
  4. Frances Pinter, CEO, Manchester University Press and Founder of Knowledge Unlatched
  5. Lisa Spiro, Executive Director of Digital Scholarship Services, Rice University
  6. Marilyn Billings, Scholarly Communication & Special Initiatives Librarian, University of Massachusetts
  7. Micah Vandegrift, Digital Scholarship Coordinator, Florida State University
  8. Michael Eisen, co-founder of PLOS and Professor of Genetics, Genomics and Development, U Cal Berkeley
  9. Renaud Fabre, Director, Scientific and Technical Information Directorate (DIST), French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS)
  10. Richard Price, Founder and CEO,
  11. Tony Roche, Publishing Director, Emerald Publishing Group


How fast is open access growing? Is this fast enough? Why or why not? What are the impacts of currently evolving open systems? For instance, are overall costs being reduced for scholarly libraries? Is global access to scholarly information increasing? What about in the Global South? What is the impact in this region of increasing adoption of the author-pays system? What pressures is the move to open placing on institutions and systems and what are the costs/benefits?

  1. Christopher Thomas, Administrator, Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC), US Department of Defense
  2. Jack Schultz, Director, Christopher S. Bond Life Science Center, University of Missouri
  3. Jason Hoyt, CEO, PeerJ
  4. Jean-Gabriel Bankier, President, bepress
  5. John Dove, library and publishing consultant
  6. Karin Trainer, University Librarian, Princeton University
  7. Natalia Manola, Director, OpenAIRE
  8. Neil Thakur, Special Assistant to the Deputy Director for Extramural Research, NIH, and program manager for the NIH Public Access Policy
  9. Rebecca Kennison, Principal, K|N Consultants
  10. Trevor Owens, Senior Program Officer, Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS)


Do researchers and scientists participate in the current system of scholarly publishing because they like it, they need it, they don’t have a choice in the matter, or they don’t really care one way or another? What perceptions, considerations and incentives do academicians have for staying the course (like impact factors and tenure points), and what are their pressures and incentives for changing direction (like lowering publishing charges)?

  1. Barbara DeFelice, Program Director for Scholarly Communication, Copyright and Publishing, Dartmouth College
  2. Crispin Taylor, Executive Director, American Society of Plant Biologists
  3. Gary Evoniuk, Director of Publication Practices, GlaxsoSmithKline (GSK)
  4. Jane McAuliffe, Director, National and International Outreach, Library of Congress
  5. Jeff Mackie-Mason, Dean of Libraries, University of California Berkeley
  6. Jennifer Pesanelli, Deputy Executive Director for Operations and Director of Publications, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB)
  7. Julie Hannaford, Deputy Chief Librarian, University of Toronto
  8. Michael Wolfe, Executive Director, Authors Alliance
  9. Nancy Davenport, University Librarian, American University
  10. Paul Royster, Coordinator of Scholarly Communications, UNL Libraries
  11. Pollyanne Frantz, Executive Director, Grants Resource Center, American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU)


Information underload occurs when we don’t have access to the information we need (for a variety of reasons, including cost) —researchers based at smaller institutions and in the global periphery, policymakers, and the general public, particularly with regard to medical research. Overload occurs when we can access everything but are simply overwhelmed by the torrent of information available (not all of which is equally valuable). Are these issues two sides of the same coin? In both cases, how can we work together to figure out how to get people the information they need? Can we? How widespread are these issues? What are the economic and research consequences of information underload and overload?

  1. Bryan Alexander, higher education publishing consultant and futurist
  2. Claudia Holland, Head of Scholarly Communication and Copyright, George Mason University
  3. Jake Orlowitz, Head of The Wikipedia Library
  4. Jeff Tsao, Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff, Sandia National Laboratories
  5. Joyce Ogburn, Dean of Libraries, Appalachian State
  6. Kathleen Keane, Director, Johns Hopkins University Press
  7. Mary Augusta Thomas, Deputy Director, Smithsonian Libraries
  8. Kim Barrett, Dean of the Graduate Division, University of California San Diego (UCSD)
  9. Patrick Herron, Senior Research Scientist, Information Science + Studies, Duke University
  10. Sioux Cumming, Program Manager, Online Journals, International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP)


Are we satisfied with the current state of global knowledge preservation? What are the current preservation methods? Who are the actors? Is this system satisfactory? What role do institutional repositories play in this process? What does the future hold for these repositories (taking into account linking efforts, publishing company concerns about revenue declines, widespread dark archiving practices, and so on)? Would new mandates help (or do we simply need to tighten existing mandates so they actually compel authors to do certain things)? And how do versions of record figure into all of this—that is, how do archiving policies (with regard to differences between pre-journal and post-journal versions) affect knowledge accuracy and transfer?

  1. Agathe Gebert, Open Access Repository Manager, GESIS-Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences
  2. Brooks Hanson, Director of Publications, American Geophysical Union
  3. Christina Drummond, Director of Strategic Initiatives, Educopia Institute
  4. James Hilton, University Librarian and Dean of Libraries, Vice Provost for Digital Education and Innovation, University of Michigan
  5. Joyce Backus, Associate Director for Library Operations, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health
  6. Maryann Martone, Director of Biosciences,, and President, FORCE11
  7. Richard Ovenden, Bodley’s Librarian, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford
  8. Rita Scheman, Publications Director, American Physiological Society
  9. Robert Cartolano, Vice President for Digital Programs and Technology Services, Columbia University
  10. Sarah Michalak, Associate Provost for University Libraries and University Librarian, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill (UNC)
  11. Sarah Pritchard, Dean of Libraries, Northwestern University


Managing the peer review process is one of the major attractions and benefits of the current publisher-driven publishing environment. Would it be possible to maintain peer review in different system—perhaps one where peer review happens at the institutional level, or in an online-review environment? How? What is really needed from peer review, what are the reform options (and what do we already know about the options that have been tried)?

  1. Angela Cochran, Director of Journals, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
  2. Becky Clark, Director of Publishing, Library of Congress
  3. Bev Acreman, Commercial Director, F1000
  4. Caroline Black, Editorial Director, BioMed Central (SpringerNature)
  5. Catriona MacCallum, Acting Advocacy Director, PLOS
  6. Chris Bourg, Director, MIT Libraries
  7. Francisco Valdés Ugalde, Director General, Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO) in Mexico
  8. Kevin Davies, Vice President for Business Development, American Chemical Society, and Publisher, C&EN
  9. Paul Peters, CEO, Hindawi Publishing
  10. Peter Berkery, Executive Director, American Association of University Presses (AAUP)
  11. Rachel Dresbeck, President, National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP) and Director of Research Development and Communications, Oregon Health and Science University
  12. Robert Schnabel, CEO, Association of Computing Machinery


In an information system where so much information is destined for subscription journals, the assumption has been that embargos allow publishers time to recoup their investments, and also allow the press time to prepare news articles about research. Is this assumption warranted? Why or why not? Is the public interest being served by embargos? What about by embargos on federally-funded research? Are there any facts or options that haven’t yet been considered to address the concerns animating the embargo solution?

  1. Ann Riley, President, Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL)
  2. Audrey McColloch, Chief Executive, Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP)
  3. Danny Kingsley, Head of Scholarly Communication, Cambridge University
  4. Eric Massant, Senior Director of Government and Industry Affairs, RELX Group
  5. Gail McMillan, Director of Scholarly Communication, Virginia Tech
  6. Glenorchy Campbell, Managing Director, British Medical Journal (BMJ) North America
  7. Gregg Gordon, President, Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
  8. Keith Webster, Dean of Libraries, Carnegie Mellon University
  9. Laura Helmuth, Incoming President, National Association of Science Writers (NASW)
  10. Tony Peatfield, Director of Corporate Affairs, Medical Research Council, Research Councils UK (RCUK)
  11. Will Schweitzer, Director of Product Development, AAAS/Science


Tracking the metrics of a more open publishing world will be key to selling “open” and encouraging broader adoption of open solutions. Will more openness mean lower impact, though (for whatever reason—less visibility, less readability, less press, etc.)? Why or why not? Perhaps more fundamentally, how useful are impact factors anyway? What are they really tracking, and what do they mean? What are the pros and cons of our current reliance on these measures? Would faculty be satisfied with an alternative system as long as it is recognized as reflecting meaningfully on the quality of their scholarship? What might such an alternative system look like?

  1. Colleen Cook, Dean of Libraries, McGill University
  2. David Ross, Executive Director for Open Access, SAGE Publications
  3. Roberto F. Arruda, Special Advisor to the Scientific Director, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)
  4. Laurie Goodman, Editor-in-Chief, GigaScience
  5. Mary Ellen Davis, Executive Director, Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL)
  6. Neil Jacobs, Head of Scholarly Communication Support, UK Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)
  7. Pablo Gentili, Executive Secretary, Latin American Council of Social Sciences (CLACSO) and Director, Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO) in Brazil
  8. Richard Gedye, Executive Council Chair, Research4Life and Director of Outreach Programs, International Association of STM Publishers
  9. Robin Champieux, Scholarly Communication Librarian, Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU)
  10. Stuart Taylor, Publishing Director, The Royal Society


  1. Ali Andalibi, Associate Dean of Research, George Mason University
  2. Bhanu Neupane, Program Specialist, Communication and Information Sector, UNESCO
  3. Concetta Seminara, Editorial Director, US Social Science & Humanities Journals Program, Routledge/Taylor & Francis
  4. Dave McColgin, User Experience Director, Artefact
  5. Grace Xiao, Co-Founder and President, Kynplex
  6. Jessica Sebeok, Associate Vice President for Policy, Association of American Universities (AAU)
  7. John Warren, Head, Mason Publishing Group, George Mason University
  8. John Zenelis, Dean of Libraries and University Librarian, George Mason University
  9. Joshua Greenberg, Program Director for Digital Information Technology, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
  10. Judy Luther, President, Informed Strategies
  11. Kamran Naim, Lead Researcher, Open Access Cooperative Study
  12. Mark Ware, Director, Mark Ware Consulting
  13. Mary Woolley, President, Research!America
  14. Meredith Morovati, Executive Director, Dryad
  15. Nancy Gwinn, Director, Smithsonian Libraries
  16. Norbert Lossau, Vice President, University of Göttingen
  17. Peter Potter, Director of Publishing Strategy, Virginia Tech
  18. Scott Plutchak, Director of Digital Data Curation Strategies, University of Alabama at Birmingham
  19. Sindy Escobar-Alvarez, Senior Program Officer, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Medical Research Program
  20. Steve Fiore, President, Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research (INGRoup)
  21. Susan Skomal, President/CEO, BioOne
  22. Terry Ehling, Associate Director, Content Acquisition and Publisher Relations, Project MUSE, Johns Hopkins University Press
  23. Todd Carpenter, Executive Director, National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
  24. William Gunn, Director of Scholarly Communications, Elsevier
Names, titles and assignments as listed in program

OSI2017 Workgroup Composition


Following up on recommendations from OSI2016, this team will dig deeper into the question of developing and recommending new tools to repair or replace the journal impact factor (and/or how it is used), and propose actions the OSI community can take between now and the next meeting. What’s needed? What change is realistic and how will we get there from here?

  1. Ali Andalibi, Associate Dean of Research, Science, George Mason University
  2. Brian Selzer, Assistant Director of Publications, American Public Health Association
  3. Eric Brown, Division Leader, Explosive Science and Shock Physics, Los Alamos National Laboratory
  4. Marilyn Billings, Scholarly Communication & Special Initiatives Librarian, UMass Amherst
  5. Patty Baskin, President, Council of Science Editors (CSE) and Executive Editor, Neurology Journals
  6. Stephanie Orfano, Head of Scholarly Communications, University of Toronto
  7. Suzie Allard, Associate Dean for Research and Director, Center for Information & Communication Studies, U of Tennessee
  8. Todd Carpenter, Executive Director, NISO


Following up on the research ideas proposed by OSI2016 delegates, this workgroup will create broad action plans for a variety of studies, beginning with the global flip, moving next to embargos, and also including publisher services disaggregation and an assessment of open impacts if possible—how fast, how even, systemic pressures and so on (referencing the OSI2016 workgroup papers on these various topics). Detailed study protocols aren’t expected, but rather an outline of what to prioritize, and how to conduct this work without necessarily relying on large grants from neutral parties. With regard to the global flip, this research is needed to help answer the question of whether a flip using APC’s is the right model to pursue (given concerns, for instance, about how this might affect access in the global south).

  1. Caroline Sutton, Head of Open Scholarship Development, Taylor & Francis
  2. Colleen Campbell, Director, OA2020 Partner Development, Max Planck Digital Library
  3. Eric Archambault, President and CEO, 1science
  4. Kamran Naim, Lead Researcher, Open Access Cooperative Study, Stanford University; Strategic Development Manager, Annual Reviews
  5. Krista Cox, Director of Public Policy Initiatives, ARL
  6. Lorcan Dempsey, Vice President of Membership & Research and Chief Strategist, OCLC
  7. Megan Wacha, Scholarly Communications Librarian, City University of New York
  8. Ralf Schimmer , Head of Scientific Information Provision, Max Planck Digital Library
  9. Roy Kaufman, Managing Director, New Ventures, CCC
  10. Wim Van der Stelt, EVP Strategic Relations, SpringerNature


What standards, norms, best practices, exit strategies, and incentive systems does the world of scholarly communications need? What is the future ideal? What will it take (including studies or pilots) to develop a better understanding of how the scholarly communication system works now? This workgroup will also necessarily touch on norms and definitions, so will include discussions as warranted about open and impact spectrums as covered in OSI2016.

  1. Adrian Ho, Director of Digital Scholarship, University of Kentucky Libraries
  2. Brianna Schofield, Executive Director, Authors Alliance
  3. David Mellor, Project Manager, Journal and Funder Initiatives, Center for Open Science
  4. Emma Wilson, Director of Publishing, Royal Society of Chemistry
  5. Howard Ratner, Executive Director, CHORUS
  6. Martin Kalfatovic, Associate Director, Smithsonian Libraries
  7. Michelle Gluck, Associate General Counsel, George Washington University


Following up on a proposal from OSI2016, this workgroup will identify and/or design new funding models for open, such as a venture fund that can allow more support for joint efforts, or propose ways to improve existing funding by improving the flexibility of library budgets (e.g., by examining the efficiency of “big deals”).

  1. Alexander Kohls, SCOAP3 Operation Manager, CERN
  2. Carrie Calder, Director, Business Operations & Policy, Springer Nature
  3. Celeste Feather, Senior Director of Licensing and Strategic Partnerships, Lyrasis
  4. Christine Stamison, Director, NorthEast Research Libraries Consortium (NERL)
  5. Karla Cosgriff, Director of Advancement, Free the Science, The Electrochemical Society
  6. Kris Bishop, Product Manager, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)/Science Family of Journals
  7. Michael Zentner, Senior Research Scientist, Network for Computational Nanotechnology, Purdue
  8. Nick Lindsay, Journals Director, The MIT Press


Building on the findings of OSI2016’s preservation, repositories and mandates workgroup, this workgroup will propose a way forward for repository and infrastructure solutions—detailing what’s needed before action can be taken, what this action should look like, what actors should be involved, and so on.

  1. Andrew Tein, Vice President, International Government Partnerships, Wiley
  2. Catherine Mitchell, President, Library Publishing Coalition and Director, Access & Publishing Group, California Digital Library
  3. Dave Ross, Executive Director, Open Access, SAGE Publishing
  4. Geraldine Clement-Stoneham, Knowledge and Information Manager, Medical Research Council, RCUK
  5. Jake Orlowitz, Head of The Wikipedia Library, Wikimedia Foundation
  6. Michele Woods, Director of the Copyright Law Division, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
  7. Najko Janh, Scholarly Communication Analyst, University of Gottingen
  8. Terri Fishel, Library Director, Macalester College
  9. William Simpson, Associate Librarian and Institutional Repository Librarian, University of Delaware


Building on the peer review workgroup’s proposals from OSI2016, this workgroup will develop a broader and clearer description of peer review that takes into account the different needs for different stages of review, as well as discuss possibly emerging issues such as the need to promote uniform interpretation and enforcement of peer review definitions, and will develop proposals for moving forward.

  1. Abel Packer, Co-founder and director, SciELO
  2. Ann Gabriel, Vice President Global Academic & Research Relations, Elsevier
  3. Lacey Earle, Vice President of Business Development, Cabell’s
  4. Lorena Barba, Associate Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, GWU
  5. Mark Newton, Director of Digital Scholarship, Columbia University Libraries
  6. Nancy Davenport, University Librarian, American University
  7. Richard Price, Founder and CEO,


Following a common thread from throughout OSI2016, this workgroup will develop partnership proposals for this community to work together to improve the culture of communication inside academia, particularly inside research. As part of this effort, it may be important to clarify messaging with regard to the benefits and impacts of open—and/or determine what resources and information are needed before this messaging work can be done effectively (including proving the benefits of open to a skeptical research community, addressing the many concerns involved, explaining the pros and cons, and making the case for why this is worth the trouble).

  1. Barbara DeFelice, Program Director, Scholarly Communication, Copyright, and Publishing, Dartmouth
  2. Barrett Matthews, Copyright & Scholarly Agreements Specialist, GWU
  3. Dan Morgan, Digital Science Publisher, University of California Press
  4. Eric Olson, Outreach coordinator, PressForward Institute
  5. Jason Steinhauer, Director, Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest, Villanova University
  6. Leslie Reynolds, Senior Associate Dean of Libraries, University of Colorado Boulder
  7. Louise Page, Publisher, PLOS
  8. Mary Yess, Deputy Executive Director & Chief Content Officer, The Electrochemical Society
  9. Rachael Samberg, Scholarly Communication Officer, UC Berkeley
  10. Susan Haigh, Executive Director, Canadian Associate of Research Libraries


Following a common thread that ran throughout OSI2016, this workgroup will discuss promotion and tenure reform, developing a widely-accepted and inclusive model (or a path to a model) that stakeholder partners can use to help reduce the influence of journal publishing on promotion and tenure decisions and help make these decisions broader, more transparent, and less reliant on publishing and impact factor measures. Note that this group is not trying to remove publishing from tenure decisions—just break the feedback loop that is fueling undesirable outcomes in scholarly publishing, academia, and grant funding.

  1. Amy Jessen-Marshall, Vice President for Integrative Liberal Learning and the Global Commons, Association of American Colleges and Universities
  2. Cheryl Ball, Director, Digital Publishing Institute, West Virginia University
  3. Holly Falk-Krzesinski, Vice President for Strategic Alliances in Global Academic Relations, Elsevier
  4. Jessica Clemons, Associate University Librarian for Research Education and Outreach, SUNY-Buffalo
  5. Kim Barrett, Distinguished Professor of Medicine and Editor-in-Chief, The Journal of Physiology
  6. Sheree Crosby, VP of Global Marketing, Cabell’s
  7. Stacy Konikel, Director of Research and Education,


A new issue for OSI2017, this workgroup will focus on the unique challenges faced by the global south, the global diversity of scholarly communication, and the different issues, challenges and opportunities in both underserved regions of the world and underserved segments (like small colleges and small research firms). This group will also follow up on the information underload issue explored in OSI2016 (specific to research).

  1. Bhanu Neupane, Program Manager, UNESCO
  2. Helena Asamoah-Hassan, Executive Director, African Library and Information Associations (AfLIA)
  3. Margaret Winker, Secretary, World Association of Medical Editors
  4. Richard Gedye, Director of Outreach Programmes, STM and Publisher Coordinator, Research4Life
  5. Sioux Cumming, Programme Manager Journals Online, INASP
  6. Susan Murray, Director, African Journals Online
  7. Talmesha Richards, Chief Academic and Diversity Officer, STEMConnector
  8. Williams Nwagwu, Head of Knowledge Management, Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa (CODESRIA)


What are the impacts of Sci-Hub and other rogue solutions on open access and what is the future of this approach, which may be gaining new mainstream support (noting for instance Wellcome’s recent funding of ResearchGate). What new resources should the scholarly community develop (and how) that would be useful and legal additions to our progress toward open (a new blacklist for instance, or new repositories)? This group will also integrate (to the extent possible) ideas raised by the information overload workgroup from OSI2016.

  1. Bryan Alexander, President, Bryan Alexander Consulting
  2. Christopher Erdmann, Chief Strategist for Research Collaboration, NCSU Libraries
  3. Hillary Corbett, Director of Scholarly Communication & Digital Publishing, Northeastern University
  4. Lars Bjørnshauge, Founder and Managing Director, DOAJ
  5. Meg Oakley, Director of Copyright & Scholarly Communications, Georgetown
  6. Nancy Gwinn, Director, Smithsonian Institution Libraries
  7. Paul Peters, CEO, Hindawi
  8. Tom Reller, Vice President Global Corporate Relations, Elsevier


As a new issue for OSI2017, this workgroup will look at patent literature, research reports, databases and other published information. OSI by design has a university-centric and journal-centric bias to the perspectives being considered. Patent literature, research reports, and databases are also important sources of research information—more so than journals in some disciplines (although these still reference journal articles). As with journal articles, this information isn’t always free or easy to find and is suffering from some of the same usability issues as journal articles.

  1. Crispin Taylor, CEO, American Society of Plant Biologists
  2. Denise Stephens, University Librarian, UC Santa Barbara
  3. Donald Guy, Manager, Research Collaboration & Library Services, Sandia National Labs
  4. Joann Delenick, Scientist, biocurator
  5. Joyce Ogburn, Digital Strategies and Partnerships Librarian, Appalachian State University
  6. Laure Haak, Executive Director, ORCID
  7. Patrick Herron, Senior Research Scientist for Information Science + Studies, Duke University


What are the unique needs and concerns of HSS scholars in this conversation? What are the unique needs and concerns of scientists (particularly in health/medicine)? This workgroup will recommend approaches and solutions to scholarly communications reform that work for both groups—a challenging assignment but important since common-ground conversations are what the research community is missing.

  1. Aimee Nixon, Head of Open Access Publishing, Emerald
  2. Annie Johnson, Library Publishing and Scholarly Communications Specialist, Temple University
  3. Concetta Seminara, Editorial Director, Social Science & Humanities Journals, Routledge/Taylor & Francis
  4. Diane Scott-Lichter, Sr. Vice President, Publishing, American College of Physicians; Chair, AAP/PSP Executive Committee
  5. Joan Lippincott, Associate Executive Director, Coalition for Networked Information
  6. Keith Yamamoto, Vice Chancellor for Science Policy and Strategy, Vice Dean for Research, School of Medicine, and Professor of Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California San Francisco
  7. Shira Eller, Art & Design Librarian, GWU
  8. William Gunn, Director of Scholarly Communications, Elsevier


  1. Brad Fenwick, Senior Vice President, Elsevier
  2. Geneva Henry, Dean of Libraries and Academic Innovation, George Washington University
  3. Jason Schmitt, Associate Professor Communication & Media, Clarkson University
  4. John Dove, Library and publishing consultant
  5. John Warren, Head, Mason Publishing Group, George Mason University
  6. Mangala Sharma, Program Director, Office of International Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation
  7. Michael Forster, Managing Director, IEEE Publications
  8. Scott Plutchak, Director of Digital Data Curation Strategies, UAB
  9. Stephanie Westcott, Research Assistant Professor, Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media, George Mason University