Sharing this here. 
"Folks, the stars are aligning.
I am suggesting to start this thing, democratisingknowledge.(org/net/press/depending on available domain), separately or together with etienneâs idea.
I have always wanted to do this thing. Even the domain i purchased, sainsterbuka.com (sains terbuka is indonesian for open science) only display 2 policy-related statements: dora and leiden manifesto.
As others have pushed from bottom-up (just do it) approach, i have always felt the need for an accompanying top-down (policy) approach too. Especially in the context of post-colonial countries such as indonesia, where to date most academics and researchers simply do what the government told them to do.
Also, the catalyst revolving around etienneâs email (some recent time before and after):
- The initiative of democratisingwork.org, which now has been signed by more than 4000 academics globally.
We could even get the same academics to sign democratisingknowledge. That would be useful as many of them are what you would call ârock-star academicsâ.
If we could get our op-ed published in the same manner, simultaneously around the worldâs media, in as many languages as possible, even better.
- The late jon tennantâs work, Democratising Knowledge (https://www.ei-ie.org/en/woe_homepage/woe_detail/16129/democratising-knowledge-a-report-on-the-scholarly-publisher-elsevier), which already has the support of the largest education union in the world, with tens of millions of members. In fact, thatâs what the name democratisingwork.org initiative reminds me of initially.
This workâs summary has also been translated into Indonesian, but yet to be circulated. Now is as good as ever.
- Thomas Faziâs review of Pikettyâs new book. In fact, i think we could get piketty to sign it as early as possible. Does he open his data or do other open science processes? If not yet, now is best.
"https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2020/05/overcoming-capitalism-without-overcoming-globalism/
Piketty focuses in particular on what he considered to be a defining feature of neo-proprietarianism: the privatization and commodification of knowledge. He cites the case of private companies like Google that embark on the digitization and appropriation of public libraries and collections in order to charge people for accessing resources that were previously accessible for free. This is just one of the many examples of the new forms of capitalist rent associated with the private appropriation of knowledge. In many cases, this is appropriation of previously existing knowledgeâa kind of modern equivalent of the enclosure of common land in thirteenth-century England. Other examples include trademarks, copyright, design rights, geographical indications, trade secrets, and patents. As Guy Standing of SOAS University notes, since the passage of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (trips) in 1995 (binding on all WTO members), intellectual property has become the prime source of rental income:
Knowledge-intensive industries, which now account for 30 per cent of global output, are gaining as much from intellectual property (IP) as from the production of goods or services. This represents a political choice to grant monopolies over knowledge to private interests, allowing them to restrict access to knowledge and to raise the price of obtaining it or of products and services embodying it.12"
Also, i think open science has not made much progress in the field of economics, despite the reinhart-rogoff infamous spreadsheet error, and these exhortations by noah smith.
"The most dramatic demonstration of this was in 2013, when a paper by influential macroeconomists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, alleging a correlation between high government debt and low growth, was challenged by a team of economists who discovered a spreadsheet error and questionable data-censoring practices. The study, which had been used to encourage austerity in the wake of the recession, is now widely viewed as discredited.
Fortunately, there are plenty of ideas for addressing the replication crisis in empirical economics. Economists Garret Christensen and Edward Miguel have a raft of suggestions for how economists can improve their research practices â pre-registering research plans, full and open sharing of data and code, more stringent statistical tests and the publication of ânullâ results. Jan Höffler and Thomas Kneib of the Institute for New Economic Thinking suggest that replicating papers should be an important part of graduate studentsâ education. That idea seems especially promising â not only will it harness a vast unexploited reservoir of talent toward the task of replication, but it will be an effective way of teaching students how to do their own research.
These cultural changes will take many years to become standard practice. In the meantime, economics writers and their readers are faced with the daunting task of deciding how much confidence to place in the results coming out of research in the field. The best strategy, as I see it, is strength in numbers â if a finding is confirmed by multiple teams using multiple data sets and methods of analysis, itâs inherently more reliable than if it relies on one paper only. Instead of treating empirical findings as breakthroughs, we should treat them as pieces of evidence that go into building an overall case.
That doesnât mean that single results arenât worth reporting or taking into account, but a single finding shouldnât be enough to generate certainty about how the world works. In a universe filled with uncertainty, social science canât progress by leaps and bounds â it must crawl forward, feeling its way inch by inch toward a little more truth.
- The recently published DORAâs âRethinking Research Assessment: Ideas for Actionâ
Also, their recent funder discussion, which should be held with other funders around the world i think, especially post-colonial governments.
As have already happened for latin america:
Furthermore, specific to indonesia, it seems that the louder the open science peopleâs voice, the more insistent the indonesian governmentâs effort to not listen to them, evidenced by their policies of ever increasing integration with commercial and closed science! 
Also, immediately i think we can get organizational involvement on this, such as DORA, INET, and IGDORE, to name a few.
Thatâs all for now. :)"
