(This post is taken from a recent edition of my subscription newsletter Inside Public Access)
By David Wojick, Ph.D.
Synopsis: Now
that the Plan S comment period is over and the comments made public, we can see
that there is a raging debate over whether journals ought to comply or not. So
it is time to consider the possible end games, which range from a lot of
journals complying, to just a bunch, to almost none. The differences are pretty
stark.
Everything depends on how many journals choose to comply,
which in turn may well depend on how many articles fall under Plan S. At this
point China and India look like the wild cards in the game.
The Twitter-verse indicates that India is considering
signing on to Plan S. If true, this would be an important development. However,
the Indian Science Adviser's tweets seem confused in several ways, so perhaps
not to be taken too seriously. It sounds like he does not know what he is
talking about, nor is this in any way official.
Note that under Plan S in its present form, middle income countries like India (and China) get an unspecified discount on all APCs. We do not know if this is 10%, 50% or 90% at this point. But a country does not have to join the S Coalition to get the discount. In any case if the discount is large it might prevent a lot of journals from flipping to Plan S compliance.
Note that under Plan S in its present form, middle income countries like India (and China) get an unspecified discount on all APCs. We do not know if this is 10%, 50% or 90% at this point. But a country does not have to join the S Coalition to get the discount. In any case if the discount is large it might prevent a lot of journals from flipping to Plan S compliance.
Financial disclosure is also one of the most onerous rules.
It is also the funniest, because what is required -- direct costs, indirect
costs and surplus -- are grant accounting terms, not business accounting. There
is no such thing as indirect costs to a business.
But if India and China actually implement Plan S that is a
lot of papers, perhaps bringing Plan S articles to 30% of the total submitted
globally, which Smits is reported to be predicting.
The abstract question for a journal is this: What fraction of submissions has to be precluded by Plan S to make it a good decision to comply? I pointed out early on that if you have an 80% rejection rate that fraction can be large before damage occurs. On the other hand, journals do not want to write off large numbers of authors as unpublishable. It is a hard choice.
Assuming that something more than a few journals do make the leap, but many do not, we get a rather strange world in which Plan S authors can only publish in a specific subset of journals. This may be the most likely outcome, but it seems to be little discussed. The impact on the Plan S authors is probably adverse, especially if the top journals choose not to comply.
Another outcome that is quite possible is that relatively few journals choose to comply. That will be really bad for the Plan S authors, until the funders withdraw their Plan S rules, which could take a long time. A debacle in slow motion, as it were.
The abstract question for a journal is this: What fraction of submissions has to be precluded by Plan S to make it a good decision to comply? I pointed out early on that if you have an 80% rejection rate that fraction can be large before damage occurs. On the other hand, journals do not want to write off large numbers of authors as unpublishable. It is a hard choice.
Assuming that something more than a few journals do make the leap, but many do not, we get a rather strange world in which Plan S authors can only publish in a specific subset of journals. This may be the most likely outcome, but it seems to be little discussed. The impact on the Plan S authors is probably adverse, especially if the top journals choose not to comply.
Another outcome that is quite possible is that relatively few journals choose to comply. That will be really bad for the Plan S authors, until the funders withdraw their Plan S rules, which could take a long time. A debacle in slow motion, as it were.
The worst (or best) case is where very few to no journals
choose to comply. To my knowledge none are presently in compliance. What are
the Plan S authors to do? This would call for emergency action by the funders,
but most are government agencies so this might be difficult.
The spread of possible outcomes is very large at this point. Welcome to limbo.
The spread of possible outcomes is very large at this point. Welcome to limbo.
A fascinating game indeed.
Two notices to notice
Two groups are now actively working to advise journals on
transitioning, one to OA in general the other specifically to Plan S OA.
Here is the Plan S specific notice:
Helping learned societies transition to Open Access and
explore Plan S-compliant business models
Wellcome, in partnership with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), have engaged Information Power to explore a range of potential strategies and business models through which learned societies can transition to Open Access and adapt and thrive under Plan S. The project is called Society Publishers Accelerating Open Access and Plan S (SPA-OPS).
Plan S, developed by the European Commission in partnership with Science Europe, seeks to move to a world where all research findings are made Open Access (OA).
As the number of researchers covered by Plan S-compliant funding increases it will, in time, put pressure on the business models of many learned societies, which rely on hybrid journal publishing not only to cover their publishing costs, but to generate revenue for other important activities they undertake such as hosting meetings/conferences and awarding fellowships and other grants.
Robert Kiley, Head of Open Research at Wellcome said, Wellcome and UKRI recognise the value learned societies play in supporting researchers and contributing to a vibrant research ecosystem. We are keen for them to be successful in transition to OA in line with Plan S. We are delighted to partner with ALPSP to explore via the team at Information Power a diverse array of potential strategies and business models through which learned societies can adapt and thrive to this changing landscape.
The team including Alicia Wise, Lorraine Estelle, and Hazel Woodward at Information Power plus additional expert Yvonne Campfens will document and develop a range of transition approaches and business models for Learned Society publishers to consider. These will be developed in dialogue with Society publishers, libraries and consortia, funders, Society members, and Society publishing partners. Pilots with two Society publishers will bring some of the approaches and models to life. The final report will be published in July 2019, and all materials will be available under a CC-BY licence.
About Wellcome Trust:
Wellcome exists to improve health by helping great ideas to thrive. We support researchers, we take on big health challenges, we campaign for better science, and we help everyone get involved with science and health research. We are a politically and financially independent foundation. https://wellcome.ac.uk/
About UKRI
UK Research and Innovation is a new body which works in partnership with universities, research organisations, businesses, charities, and government to create the best possible environment for research and innovation to flourish. Operating across the whole of the UK with a combined budget of more than £6 billion, UKRI brings together the seven Research Councils, Innovate UK and Research England. We work with our many partners to benefit everyone through knowledge, talent and ideas. https://www.ukri.org/
About ALPSP
The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) is an international membership trade body that supports and represents not-for-profit organizations and institutions that publish scholarly and professional content. With over 300 members in 30 countries, membership also includes those that work with these publishers. Our mission is to connect, inform, develop and represent the international scholarly and professional publishing community. https://www.alpsp.org/about-alpsp
Wellcome, in partnership with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), have engaged Information Power to explore a range of potential strategies and business models through which learned societies can transition to Open Access and adapt and thrive under Plan S. The project is called Society Publishers Accelerating Open Access and Plan S (SPA-OPS).
Plan S, developed by the European Commission in partnership with Science Europe, seeks to move to a world where all research findings are made Open Access (OA).
As the number of researchers covered by Plan S-compliant funding increases it will, in time, put pressure on the business models of many learned societies, which rely on hybrid journal publishing not only to cover their publishing costs, but to generate revenue for other important activities they undertake such as hosting meetings/conferences and awarding fellowships and other grants.
Robert Kiley, Head of Open Research at Wellcome said, Wellcome and UKRI recognise the value learned societies play in supporting researchers and contributing to a vibrant research ecosystem. We are keen for them to be successful in transition to OA in line with Plan S. We are delighted to partner with ALPSP to explore via the team at Information Power a diverse array of potential strategies and business models through which learned societies can adapt and thrive to this changing landscape.
The team including Alicia Wise, Lorraine Estelle, and Hazel Woodward at Information Power plus additional expert Yvonne Campfens will document and develop a range of transition approaches and business models for Learned Society publishers to consider. These will be developed in dialogue with Society publishers, libraries and consortia, funders, Society members, and Society publishing partners. Pilots with two Society publishers will bring some of the approaches and models to life. The final report will be published in July 2019, and all materials will be available under a CC-BY licence.
About Wellcome Trust:
Wellcome exists to improve health by helping great ideas to thrive. We support researchers, we take on big health challenges, we campaign for better science, and we help everyone get involved with science and health research. We are a politically and financially independent foundation. https://wellcome.ac.uk/
About UKRI
UK Research and Innovation is a new body which works in partnership with universities, research organisations, businesses, charities, and government to create the best possible environment for research and innovation to flourish. Operating across the whole of the UK with a combined budget of more than £6 billion, UKRI brings together the seven Research Councils, Innovate UK and Research England. We work with our many partners to benefit everyone through knowledge, talent and ideas. https://www.ukri.org/
About ALPSP
The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) is an international membership trade body that supports and represents not-for-profit organizations and institutions that publish scholarly and professional content. With over 300 members in 30 countries, membership also includes those that work with these publishers. Our mission is to connect, inform, develop and represent the international scholarly and professional publishing community. https://www.alpsp.org/about-alpsp
About Information Power:
Information Power Ltd has provided consultancy services in the research information space since 1985. The team works with funders, libraries, consortia, publishers, agents, vendors, and universities to advance learning, research, and scholarly communication. http://www.informationpower.co.uk/
Information Power Ltd has provided consultancy services in the research information space since 1985. The team works with funders, libraries, consortia, publishers, agents, vendors, and universities to advance learning, research, and scholarly communication. http://www.informationpower.co.uk/
Here is the more general one, from the ever active
University of California:
On behalf of the University of California systemwide Office of Scholarly
Communication, I am writing to share a new toolkit to help journals (&
librarians or professionals who support them) interested in transitioning their
publications to open access.
As explained on our blog post, (https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2019/02/transitioning-journals-to-open-access-guidance-from-and-for-the-field/), we have just released two resources:
Guide to Transitioning Journals to Open Access Publishing. This guide is designed to help stakeholders understand basics about journal ownership, operations, and funding models, and to begin gathering important information necessary for OA publishing decision-making.
Checklist for Consultations About Transitioning Journals to OA
This checklist is for libraries and institutions to help facilitate consultations & conversations about journal operations, finances, and strategies so that journal boards and editors can come away from the conversation with a clearer understanding of how to proceed with an OA transition.
We hope these resources are of use, and we'll continue to add more. Please contact OSC@ucop.edu with any questions.
Best,
Rachael (on behalf of the whole OSC team)
-
Rachael G. Samberg, J.D., MLIS
Scholarly Communication Officer
University of California, Berkeley
438 Doe Library
Berkeley, CA 94720-6000
rsamberg@berkeley.edu
Ph. 510.664.5095 [N.B. new number]
As explained on our blog post, (https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2019/02/transitioning-journals-to-open-access-guidance-from-and-for-the-field/), we have just released two resources:
Guide to Transitioning Journals to Open Access Publishing. This guide is designed to help stakeholders understand basics about journal ownership, operations, and funding models, and to begin gathering important information necessary for OA publishing decision-making.
Checklist for Consultations About Transitioning Journals to OA
This checklist is for libraries and institutions to help facilitate consultations & conversations about journal operations, finances, and strategies so that journal boards and editors can come away from the conversation with a clearer understanding of how to proceed with an OA transition.
We hope these resources are of use, and we'll continue to add more. Please contact OSC@ucop.edu with any questions.
Best,
Rachael (on behalf of the whole OSC team)
-
Rachael G. Samberg, J.D., MLIS
Scholarly Communication Officer
University of California, Berkeley
438 Doe Library
Berkeley, CA 94720-6000
rsamberg@berkeley.edu
Ph. 510.664.5095 [N.B. new number]
