Rick Anderson: Reconciling the Needs of Analysis and Advocacy in Scholarly-Communication Reform

Reforming scholarly communication is a tough job, made tougher by factors that include the lack of unanimity among stakeholders as to what reform should look like (or whether it's needed at all); the wide variety of needs and interests among the system's stakeholders; the structural complexity of the system itself; the lack of unanimity as to what "open access" means; the heavy weight of tradition in academic practice; and the high level of emotion that inevitably accompanies discussion of these issues. The difficulty and complexity of the reform project suggest that analysis is needed, but the moral and emotional weight of the issues involved naturally lead us in the direction of advocacy instead—and advocacy and analysis are, unfortunately, natural enemies.In this session we reviewed salient aspects of the scholarly-communication landscape that make reform particularly challenging, some principles for addressing those challenges, and some possible mechanisms for applying these principles to bridge perspectives, including strategies for including the all-important authors' voice.