Scholarly services incubating environments

Published by Access 2 Perspectives on September 3, 2024September 3, 2024

𝗤𝘂𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀:
How can we foster an environment where scholarly services can thrive with whichever business and taxation model may work best in a given (geographical and institutional) setting?

The goal is to diversify the regional imbalance pointed out in https://access2perspectives.pubpub.org/pub/i3k3btoa

𝙂𝙚𝙤𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙥𝙝𝙞𝙘 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝘿𝙊𝙎𝙏𝙨 (digital open science tools) 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙚𝙨

[…] 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙊𝙥𝙚𝙣 𝙎𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙢𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙨𝙪𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙯𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨. 𝙄𝙣𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙢𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙫𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙪𝙖𝙡𝙨 𝙞𝙣 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙨𝙤𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙩𝙮. 𝙄𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙖𝙮, 𝙊𝙥𝙚𝙣 𝙎𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙨 𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚 (𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛-𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙚𝙙) 𝙢𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 “𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙡𝙚𝙙𝙜𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙨” (𝙃𝙚𝙨𝙨 & 𝙊𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙢, 2007) 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙚𝙨 𝙖 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙮, 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙙𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩—𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙮–𝙩𝙤 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙙𝙖𝙩𝙖, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙤𝙬𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝙖 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙨. 𝙒𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙮 𝙢𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙠𝙨 𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙢𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙞𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘿𝙊𝙎𝙏 𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙨𝙮𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙡𝙙 𝙞𝙨 𝙪𝙣𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙬𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙙𝙨 𝙖 𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙣𝙪𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙝𝙞𝙜𝙝-𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨 (𝙃𝙄𝘾𝙨). 𝘼 2013 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙤𝙧𝙩 𝙗𝙮 𝙐𝙉𝙀𝙎𝘾𝙊 𝙝𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝘾𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙖, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙀𝙪𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙣 𝙐𝙣𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙅𝙖𝙥𝙖𝙣, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙍𝙪𝙨𝙨𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙁𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙐𝙎𝘼 𝙩𝙤𝙜𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙤𝙧 72% 𝙤𝙛 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙬𝙤𝙧𝙡𝙙𝙬𝙞𝙙𝙚. 𝙐𝙣𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙡𝙮, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝘿𝙊𝙎𝙏𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣, 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙟𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙙𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙖 𝙝𝙞𝙜𝙝 𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙞𝙣𝙫𝙚𝙨𝙩𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙞𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙘𝙝 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙖𝙡 𝙙𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙧𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙨. 𝘼𝙨 𝙖 𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙪𝙡𝙩, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙤𝙤𝙡𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙧 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙚𝙨 – 𝙖𝙨 𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙟𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙨 – 𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙚𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙛𝙖𝙫𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙖 𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙣𝙪𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨.

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘 𝙜𝙚𝙤𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙥𝙝𝙞𝙘 𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝘿𝙊𝙎𝙏𝙨, 𝙖𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙤𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙙𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙥𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩, 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜, 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙖𝙘𝙝 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙢𝙥𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙁𝙊𝙎𝙎 𝙢𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩. 𝙁𝙊𝙎𝙎 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙜 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙖 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢 𝙤𝙛 𝙙𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙘𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙮 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙨𝙤𝙛𝙩𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙥𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙗𝙮 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙫𝙤𝙞𝙙 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘 𝙜𝙚𝙤𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙥𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮-𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙨 (𝙏𝙚𝙣𝙣𝙖𝙣𝙩 𝙚𝙩 𝙖𝙡., 2020; 𝙑𝙚𝙧𝙢𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙚𝙩 𝙖𝙡., 2018). 𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙢𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡 𝙤𝙛 “𝙨𝙤𝙛𝙩𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙢𝙞𝙧𝙧𝙤𝙧𝙨”15 𝙞𝙨 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙨𝙮𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢𝙨 𝙨𝙪𝙘𝙝 𝙖𝙨 𝙂𝙉𝙐 𝙖𝙨 𝙬𝙚𝙡𝙡 𝙖𝙨 𝙇𝙞𝙣𝙪𝙭 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙞𝙗𝙪𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝘿𝙚𝙗𝙞𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙁𝙚𝙙𝙤𝙧𝙖. 𝙉𝙤𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙙𝙪𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙢𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙨𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙖𝙘𝙝 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙞𝙧𝙧𝙤𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙞𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙚 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝘿𝙊𝙎𝙏 𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙨𝙮𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢. […]”

Bezuidenhout, L., & Havemann, J. (2020). The varying openness of digital open science tools. Access 2 Perspectives. Retrieved from https://access2perspectives.pubpub.org/pub/i3k3btoa

You can of course ask this question to ChatGPT, here is what it has to say:

Fostering an environment where scholarly services can thrive across different geographical and institutional settings, while addressing regional imbalances, requires a multifaceted approach. Here’s a strategy that considers business and taxation models:

1. Flexible Business Models

• Encourage Diverse Revenue Streams: Promote business models that are adaptable to various regional contexts. For example, services might combine subscription models with pay-per-use, freemium, or donation-based models. This flexibility allows providers to cater to different economic realities.
• Support Local Entrepreneurship: Encourage the establishment of local scholarly services by providing startup funding, mentoring, and resources tailored to the local context. This could involve partnerships with local universities or governments to create incubators or innovation hubs.
• Public-Private Partnerships: Facilitate partnerships between public institutions and private companies to fund and support scholarly services. This could involve co-investing in infrastructure, platforms, and tools that serve the academic community.

2. Taxation and Legal Framework

• Tax Incentives for Scholarly Activities: Implement tax incentives for companies and organizations involved in scholarly publishing, research, and related services. This could include tax breaks, reduced VAT rates on educational materials, or deductions for research and development (R&D).
• Simplify Cross-Border Transactions: Work on harmonizing taxation policies across borders or developing simplified taxation processes for scholarly services that operate internationally. This would help reduce barriers for companies wanting to offer services in multiple regions.
• Legal Support and Frameworks: Create legal frameworks that protect intellectual property while promoting open access and open science principles. This could involve laws that recognize and support alternative publishing models, like open access.

3. Capacity Building and Education

• Training Programs: Offer training programs to educate academics and institutions on different business models for scholarly services. This could include workshops, online courses, and webinars that focus on entrepreneurship in academia.
• Promote Awareness of Regional Disparities: Raise awareness among funding bodies, governments, and institutions about the regional imbalances in scholarly services. Encourage investment in underrepresented regions to create a more level playing field.
• Support for Infrastructure Development: Invest in digital infrastructure in less developed regions to ensure they have the technical capabilities to host and manage scholarly services.

Community and Network Building

• Regional and International Networks: Foster the creation of regional and international networks that connect scholarly service providers, researchers, and institutions. These networks can share best practices, collaborate on projects, and provide mutual support.
• Encourage Local and Regional Conferences: Support conferences and workshops that focus on the unique challenges and opportunities in different regions. These events can help build local communities and increase visibility for regional scholarly services.

5. Funding and Investment

• Diversify Funding Sources: Encourage diverse funding sources, including government grants, philanthropic organizations, and venture capital, to support scholarly services. This could include targeted funds for developing countries or regions.
• Support Open Science Initiatives: Fund and promote open science initiatives that reduce barriers to entry for scholarly services, particularly in regions with fewer resources.

6. Cultural and Institutional Change

• Encourage Institutional Adoption of Alternative Models: Promote the adoption of alternative scholarly models (e.g., open access, community-led peer review) within institutions. This can be supported by policies that recognize and reward participation in such initiatives.
• Value Local Knowledge: Encourage the recognition and integration of local knowledge and practices within the global academic community. This could involve creating platforms that highlight region-specific research and methodologies.

7. Monitoring and Feedback Mechanisms

• Regular Assessment of Regional Needs: Establish mechanisms to regularly assess the needs and challenges faced by different regions in the scholarly publishing ecosystem. This could involve surveys, feedback loops, and advisory boards with regional representation.
• Responsive Policy Making: Ensure that policies related to scholarly services are responsive to feedback and can be adjusted to address emerging regional needs and opportunities.

By addressing these key areas, we can create an environment where scholarly services are not only sustainable but also equitable, ensuring that all regions have the opportunity to contribute to and benefit from global academic knowledge.

ChatGPT 4.0

So who is in to get the process started? =)
If you would like to discuss this or similar questions and solutions, feel free to reach out via https://calendly.com/access2perspectives/free-exploratory-session