Big news yesterday of @wileyinresearch acquiring @hindawi.

Reflecting on Paul Peters’ 2017 developing #openinfra + the role of commercial publishers, a number of questions arise about the terms of the deal + what Wiley’s strategy around open is …

https://www.hindawi.com/post/a-radically-open-approach-to-developing-infrastructure-for-open-science/ https://twitter.com/wileyinresearch/status/1346815041128034307

In that post, Peters asks about a "model in which commercial players could develop + support #openinfra using service-based business models that didn’t involve ownership of this infrastructure or create dependencies on any single provider” …

Curious @Jay_Flynn_ @albertopepe & others’ views on how @Hindawi ’s stance (+ Peters’ work) to advocate for #openinfra will affect @wileyinresearch ’s broader strategy … or not.

There is much-warranted reticence in the open scholarship community about acquisitions of #openaccess publishers, tools (like Phenom) + the data about researchers these deals bring with (esp for Hindawi, given the significant global representation) …

Any statements or insights into whether this acquisition follows suit for many of the other commercial publishing/research intelligence monopolies vs taking a deliberately different tack to preserve #openinfra principles espoused here?

https://www.hindawi.com/post/a-radically-open-approach-to-developing-infrastructure-for-open-science/ #OpenAccess

Especially worth noting Peters’ thoughts re: the need for open contracts as a means of advancing development of #openinfra for scholarship.

Thilled to see Peters staying on board with the acquisiton. What will that mean for strategy more broadly around open?