John Smallwood

Critical to the discussion of the SFO is an understanding of what is meant by “joining” or “merging” with the new society. INDIVIDUALS can join, but there is no mechanism for a SOCIETY to join. The SFO vision is for a single society to be the sole representative of professional ornithology in the Western Hemisphere, free from competition from other societies. The councils/boards of OSNA societies do not have the ability to join, merge, or give their membership to the SFO. OSNA members are not property that can be transferred from one owner to another! OSNA members are free to join the SFO, or not. OSNA members also are free to remain in their OSNA societies, or not. What the SFO vision is asking the councils to do is to take away their members’ ability to remain in those societies, so that joining the SFO (or not) is the only remaining option. That strategy is patently coercive, and damaging on many levels. It makes no sense at all for a viable society to disband for the purpose of promoting another society, because if the concentration of ornithologists into a single society has overwhelming support, it will occur naturally. I.e., if OSNA members decide that they no longer want to be a part of an OSNA society and instead want to belong only to the SFO, then they’ll do that. But SFO is instead asking the boards to take away their ability to remain in those OSNA societies. This is absurd! If the SFO is such an attractive alternative to our current societies, then let it compete for members by its own merits, not by coercion.

Several members of the WOS Council received this letter from Christina Riehl. I was asked to post it with her permission. Happy to do so. John ------------------------------------------------------------------ Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Barro Colorado Island, Panama March 19, 2012 John A. Smallwood Secretary, Wilson Ornithological Society Dear Dr. Smallwood: I am a member of five different North American ornithological societies and I have published in many of the journals that would be affected by the creation of the Society for Ornithology, including The Wilson Journal, The Auk, Waterbirds, and The Journal of Field Ornithology. I am deeply disappointed in the rationale given for restructuring these journals into a tiered system, and I strongly disagree with the proposed organization of the new journals. First, the focus on the impact factor (as emphasized in the proposal) is not productive. Although it is stated that American ornithology journals currently have a lower impact factor than European journals, this is only true of the Journal of Avian Biology and The Ibis. The differences between these journals and Auk are quite small, and even these "higher" impact journals are still below 2.5! The real reason that all of these journals have relatively low impact factors is that they are taxon-specific rather than directed to a broad audience (behavioral ecology, systematics, etc.). Other leading taxon-specific journals have similarly low impact factors, even though they are widely read and extremely well respected in their fields. For example, the Journal of Mammalogy has a 2010 impact factor of 1.54. The proposal presents Ecology Letters as an example of how short formats and fast turnaround times can cause a journal's impact factor to zoom upwards. However, I would argue that this is again misleading. A perhaps more important reason for Ecology Letters’ success has been the tremendous increase in scientists (young and old) that wish to be labeled as "ecologists" rather than botanists, ornithologists, etc. While specialist societies have been losing membership, membership to the Ecological Society of America has increased. (The ESA annual meetings are enormous compared to the ornithology meetings.) Ecology Letters has done so well partly because submissions to Ecology have increased beyond publishing capacity, and more and more of these have ended up in Ecology Letters. The stated goal of the proposal is to publish high-quality, comprehensive science, and that should be the real goal here. If the impact factors of the journals do in fact go up, so much the better. Second, I am concerned by the model proposed by the tiered system. There are real dangers in having each paper reviewed by a central editorial office and then rapidly categorized into one of the proposed journals. Streamlining would increase efficiency, but at the expense of a diversity of independent opinions. Currently, I frequently review articles for The Auk that I recommend to be sent to one of the other journals – equally, I review articles for Behavioral Ecology, Proceedings B, and other top journals that I recommend to be sent to The Auk! I don’t consider this a waste of time; it’s a valuable part of the process. Editors already have one tool at their disposal for articles that clearly belong elsewhere: they can reject without review. The American ornithology journals have already separated themselves in a functional sense (for example, Auk is the leader of the group, Journal of Field Ornithology has become the go-to “methods” journal, etc.), but the overlap between them means that authors still have a number of different options for submission. Finally, this may seem like a minor point, but I suspect that the new names proposed for the journals will cause a great deal of confusion. “Letters,” “Discoveries,” “Advances,” and “Applications” are so formulaic that even after having read the proposal several times I still can’t remember which is which. I am not sure how the proposed name changes will improve the publications and as a “re-branding” attempt it seems to be somewhat lackluster. The current names of the journals connote unique identities, unique histories, and unique integrities – you might as well rename them “1, 2, 3, and 4.” All of this having been said, I understand that many of the proposed changes are made necessary by the economics of publishing and distribution. I support the goals of fast turnaround times and open access. It would be wonderful to have a more streamlined online process for submission, review, and revision. If it makes financial sense to move from a membership-based model to an NGO model, so be it. But I wonder whether it might not be possible to combine some aspects of the current societies – such as the administrative boards and annual meetings – without entirely losing the independence of their scientific publications. I imagine that it would even be possible for them to be managed as the same family of journals, while retaining their current names, identities, and at least some degree of their editorial independence. The American and Neotropical ornithological communities are strong precisely because they are taxon-based. There is an interest in, and a need for, specialist journals that publish important research that would not be appropriate for a more general forum. I believe that the ornithology journals will continue to thrive only by filling a niche that is different from the larger journals, not by imitating them. Sincerely yours, Christina Riehl Postdoctoral Research Fellow Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute & Harvard Society of Fellows

Yes, each OSNA society is at the same stage now: effectively shut out of the process until the meeting at which the AOU will (or won’t) endorse the merger plan. What is repetitive is your attempt to spin the plan as something being developed jointly by the OSNA societies. It is not. The SFO committees making the plan were self selected among those who favor a merger. The committees were not constituted by members selected by the OSNA societies. For example, one of the “founding members” of the SFO initiative also happens to be a Past-President of WOS, and in your correspondence you repeatedly portrayed this person as “representing WOS.” The WOS Council rejected that presumption by selecting for ourselves an unbiased representative, Tim O’Connell. Are you telling us that Tim is now being given the opportunity to shape the plan according to WOS interests, ahead of the February meeting? Your committee has devised a process that (inadvertently or deliberately) excludes the great majority of the ornithological community (the stakeholders): 1. The OSNA membership was never surveyed for their approval to develop a merger plan. 2. There is no provision for the OSNA membership to vote on the final plan, ever! 3. You’ve “stacked the deck” with merger proponents to develop the plan, rather than ask the OSNA societies from the beginning to choose their own unbiased representatives. 4. You won’t discuss the working outline (that you yourself circulated!) with the OSNA membership until the very meeting at which the funding organization (AOU) decides whether or not to go forward. Your implication that you’ve already answered the relevant questions is disingenuous. Please, Sue, don’t presume anything about my perspective. I’ve been a member of each society (AOU, WOS, COS, and AFO) longer than you have, so I don’t appreciate your attempt to steer the dialogue away from the substantive to the personal.

Sue: When you say that all societies except RRF will join in the planning, one could get the impression that these societies CURRENTLY are developing the business plan. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s not the case. According to your 3 November post, small SFO committees (not appointed by interested societies) are developing the plan, and interested societies won’t have the opportunity for substantive input until the AOU Council meeting in February. The significance of your timetable is that societies won’t have any formal say about the plan until the meeting at which the SFO seeks approval from the organization (AOU) that would fund the new society’s creation.

Sue: I did not ask you to comment on a finished plan. I asked you to comment on the basic concept (SFO as a merged society) that you yourself distributed as a working outline. You offer the SFO as a solution to the problems you identify (e.g., membership), yet you consistently refuse to discuss how that basic concept would address those problems. The talking point you gave as a response was as unsatisfying as it was predictable. You certainly appear to be following a marketing strategy when you should instead be engaging the ornithological community in a robust discussion of what you are pursuing. You state that no one is voting on anything any time soon, but your timetable doesn’t include a vote from the OSNA membership at all! There is the perception “out there” that the proponents of a mega-society learned a lesson from the merger attempt that failed about 20 years ago. That lesson SHOULD HAVE BEEN to not embark on such a monumental endeavor unless and until there is widespread consensus within the ornithological community to move in that direction. You seem to be going out of your way to confirm the suspicion that the lesson learned was instead a more effective strategy to get what you want, before those who may oppose it have the chance to critically evaluate it and organize against its implementation. Sorry to be blunt, but that’s a widespread opinion (correct or erroneous) to which your committee really ought to be more responsive.

Sue: You ask us to focus on the “big picture,” and illustrate what that picture is with membership data. This does seem to confirm that falling membership is indeed a principle issue that the SFO is intended to address. You’ve posted two tables of raw data, but you haven’t offered a compelling argument that the basic SFO concept/plan/working outline you distributed will solve that problem. In fact, you don’t make any argument at all! Contrary to what you are simply IMYPYING, the RRF statement explicitly describes how a merger would likely exacerbate the membership problem. So let me ask you very specifically: How would a mega-merger increase overall membership? Please share with us the SFO committee’s reasoning, and why you are right and the RRF board is wrong in this assessment.

Sue: In the letter you sent to OSNA members yesterday you stated that no OSNA Society had rejected the concept outright. The letter from RRF now informs the discussion that your statement is no longer true. I don’t think it furthers the discussion to speak of a basic “concept” in one message, then in another argue that an OSNA society made a decision “without any idea of what the plan for SFO would be.” I would like to see less posturing and more candid evaluation of the basic concept/plan/working outline and the process by which it is being pursued.

Sue: Yes, of course I read your plan for gathering input from everyone. The issue I addressed was not IF everyone would have a chance to have input, but WHEN they would have that chance. Asking people to give up the AOU and perhaps other OSNA societies is such an extraordinary request that people need the chance to respond to the basic concept, i.e., at the very beginning of the process. Without the benefit of the stakeholders input, your committee has progressed far beyond the basic concept; your working draft from last summer already is so detailed as to include the number of journals and their publication frequency. To suggest that you don’t have a basic plan to which people can provide input is not a serious response to the issue I and others are addressing. I understand that at least two more votes from the AOU Council would be required for the SFO to become a reality. However, the headline “AOU and other societies to evolve into new society for ornithology” and your remark “the train has left the station,” for example, is not the language of a feasibility study. If you want to know why there is the perception that the promoters of the SFO consider it a done deal, and I assure you that that perception is widespread, you needn’t look any further than the language you are using. How else do you expect readers to interpret remarks such as “Please embrace this change”? Finally, you asked me for a suggestion on how to better communicate with members at the current stage. Happy to oblige. Please send this e-mail message, or something like it, to every OSNA member. SUBJECT: OSNA SURVEY, PLEASE RESPOND Dear Fellow OSNA Member: As many of you are aware, several of us in leadership positions within the AOU and other societies have been developing a proposal that we believe would most effectively address the challenges that professional ornithology faces in the 21st Century. It is our view that the current system of several independent ornithological societies is no longer adequate to meet these changing needs, so we envision starting from scratch, by dissolving the independent societies and reforming as a single society to represent the discipline in the Western Hemisphere. Please carefully review the draft document (attached) which provides the basic outline of this vision. While those of us who are developing a formal proposal are excited about the new opportunities such a restructuring would represent, we are keenly aware that our primary responsibility as your elected officials is to represent your wishes. Thus, we believe it is important for us to clarify that the proposal to disband and reform as a new society is in no way a predetermined conclusion. It is only a proposal, and we assure you that we will not attempt to implement it unless there is overwhelming support from you, the members. We regret any language we have used that may have implied otherwise. Because the basic plan includes the dissolution of the AOU and perhaps other OSNA societies, we recognize that even the drafting of such a proposal has the potential to create harmful divisions within the ornithological community. To avoid that unfortunate possibility, and to demonstrate our commitment to representing your wishes, we invite and urge you to participate in a discussion of the basic plan. After reviewing the attached document, please share your thoughts on our new website, the Ornithological Exchange [provide link]. Our hope is that this forum will promote a dialogue in which all views are expressed and considered. When it appears that that goal has been accomplished, those of us who support restructuring will prepare a document that outlines the case for creating a new Society For Ornithology, and we will invite those opposed to make the case against it. Both documents will be distributed to all members by e-mail and a follow-up survey will be conducted. Again, our committee will not pursue a plan for restructuring unless and until there is overwhelming support from you to do so. Those of us proposing the new society had hoped to complete the process in time for a final vote by the membership at the NAOC-V in Vancouver next summer. However, we realize that for such a major restructuring plan to be successful, it needs to be representative of all the stakeholders, the OSNA membership. Full and active participation in this process is essential, and supersedes an arbitrary deadline. Thus, we will suspend for now our plan for a final vote in Vancouver, and reschedule the vote after it is clear that the membership has had the opportunity to fully participate in the planning process. We sincerely hope that this message clarifies the status of the restructuring proposal. Please let your voice be heard by commenting on the Ornithological Exchange forum. Your individual OSNA societies also want to hear from you so they can represent your wishes.

Sue: I have no doubt that you are working as hard as you can for what you believe is in the best interests of North American ornithology. But how can you effectively speak for a few thousand OSNA members when you are not interested in their input until you have a completed business plan to present? I agree that your approach is an efficient way to “get the ball rolling,” but you haven’t asked “us” if we want your ball to roll, or if we do, which direction we want it to roll. In her recent post, Ricky identified this key flaw in the approach you are taking to form the SFO. I am disappointed that you simply dismissed her suggestion that the general ornithological community needs to be substantively involved (or at least informed!) of the plans that you and a very small fraction of North American ornithologists are undertaking. You indicated that you’ve received overwhelming support for forming the SFO. That’s not surprising, since you are communicating with those who are involved in the planning, and you’ve elected NOT to communicate your vision of a new society with the wider ornithological community at this time. I’ve spoken with scores of ornithologists about the SFO. Most initially were unaware of these plans, but after reviewing the 28 July draft document, a very large majority are against the idea, many of them passionately so. Ignoring the opinion of the ornithological community beyond the AOU Council and the SFO planners until after you have finalized the basic plan is a serious mistake. I urge you to reconsider that decision. I’m aware of the plans for the SFO only because of my seat on the WOS and RRF councils. But as a longtime member of the AOU, I am dumfounded that my representatives on the AOU Council voted unanimously to disband the AOU and form a new society without even asking me and my fellow members what we would think about such a monumental change. I think you would be wise to heed Ricky’s suggestion by not only informing the OSNA membership what your vision for their future is, but also (and especially) inviting AND LISTENING TO the membership’s feedback. John