From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 15:46:26 +0000

I am in perfect agreement with Jan Erik Frantsvåg. Frontiers is very much
at ease with APCs and Plan S has displayed some difficulties with thinking
about OA outside the APC box. This creates a degree of convergence which
cannot be equated with Schneider's conspiracy theories. Publishers tend to
like OA with APCs, especially within the context of hybrid journals. Plan S
has pushed back on hybrid journals - a good thing - while favoring APCs to
some extent.

But the more important consequence of Plan S is that it has created a forum
for a growing number of funding agencies, both public and private, to talk
together, beyond national boundaries. That is crucial. Remember that
funding agencies have money, much more than the combined budgets of
libraries. Unlike researchers, laboratories, research institutions and even
countries, they are not ranked through the impact factor. This increases
their margin of maneuver. If they begin to coordinate their policies in
favor of OA, it will be very difficult to go against their combined will.

Regarding Schneider's conspiracy theories, he has been at this kind of
thing since at least last November - just check his blog. And the latest
message that was pointed here on this list includes a photo of Markram and
Smits which tries to connote some sort of buddy-buddy relationship, except
for the fact that this photo is probably a photoshopped mashup. Resorting
to such tactics, if demonstrated, is typical of the "fake news" syndrome.

Jean-Claude Guédon



On 2019-07-14 2:37 p.m., LIBLICENSE wrote:

From: "Jan Erik Frantsvåg" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 06:28:52 +0000

I am sceptical. Not that I think the facts are made up, but I see no trace
of any activity to look for communication with other publishers – why only
Frontiers?



I have seen scholars saying that Plan S is perfectly suited to Frontier’s
business models, implying less suited for the business models of other
publishers. I fail to see that Frontier’s business model is uniquely suited
to Plan S, it fits most APC-based/commercial OA publishers.



Robert-Jan Smits has said that Plan S was developed partly based on
consultations with publishers. Unless someone can document Frontiers was
massively over-represented in this process, I will remain sceptical to the
value of this story.



Best,

Jan Erik



Jan Erik Frantsvåg

Open Access Adviser

The University Library

UiT The Arctic University of Norway

phone +47 77 64 49 50

e-mail [log in to unmask]

http://en.uit.no/ansatte/organisasjon/ansatte/person?p_document_id=43618&p_dimension_id=88187

Publications: http://tinyurl.com/6rycjns

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3413-8799






From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 12:54:38 -0700

This came across my screen today, making me aware that I know too
little about the author of the post, the publisher involved, and the
other facts known about the origins and development of Plan S.  Is
this posting credible and how could it help me think about the plan
and the issues?

https://forbetterscience.com/2019/07/11/frontiers-and-robert-jan-smits-emails-reveal-how-plan-s-was-conceived/

Jim O'Donnell
ASU