Reflections on open scholarship in response to Bowman et al. (2022)

Abstract

I appreciate the work undertaken to better understand the fi eld ’ s penchants, proclivities, and pertur-bations concerning open scholarship. There is much to consider, and it is wise for the fi eld to give careful thought to the full range of potential e ff ects (intended v unintended, positive v negative) stemming from a shift in how scholars go about their business of generating knowledge. In a former life, I earned a Master of Public Administration (MPA) degree from Syracuse University ’ s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public A ff airs. As a result, I look at the open scholarship debate as a conversation about a change in policy. Inherent in any new policy are some relative advantages (which is why it is being put forward) and some relative weaknesses. Proponents of a change tend to prioritize and overempha-size a new policy ’ s strengths. As a result, a multitude of unintended negative consequences become evident only after the new policy is enacted. In addition, a discarding of the old policy means that some of its relative advantages will no longer be available to those who need to adhere to the new policy. This combination of gains and losses generates ambivalence, and it seems this is the current cognitive state of the fi eld regarding open scholarship. I take this ambivalence as a good sign that indicates the fi eld is not walking blindly into what could be a momentous change. Maxwell ’ s MPA program also taught me that any new policy will play itself out based on the values that serve as a foundation for its enactment. Values such as transparency, accessibility, control, equity, and replicability are part of the current debate over what should be prioritized when deciding how best to generate knowledge. Many of these values are incompatible with one another. For example, accessibility as a value is promoted through advocating for published works becoming open access. However, securing open access status for peer-reviewed journal pub-lications is not being enacted in a manner that is equitable. I am in favor of more scholarship being made