Notes

@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (41/N) Maybe there is hope.

@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (40/N) But there are interesting efforts to get funders to think differently about scholarly infrastructure. https://sparcopen.org/who-we-are/program-plan/

@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (39/N) Where uptake will be unevenly distributed and hard to account for. Not ideal.

@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (38/N) As long as funders keep pretending they are not funding scholarly infrastructure, the costs of identifiers, archiving, etc. will be collected further downstream.

@natesjacobs @csarven @lesliekwchan @ewout @sciteai @CrossrefOrg (37/N) Again, not perfect. But this may have more to do with the point where costs are recouped than with the costs themselves.