From: Sam Burrell <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:45:47 +0100

In case the list hasn’t seen this exchange on Twitter on this subject:



https://twitter.com/RickyPo/status/1151540705061478400



From Richard Poynder



Ok folks, here in the words of Robert-Jan Smits are the publishers he
consulted prior to announcing Plan S:

@SpringerNature <https://twitter.com/SpringerNature>

@ElsevierConnect <https://twitter.com/ElsevierConnect>

@F1000Research <https://twitter.com/F1000Research>

@FrontiersIn <https://twitter.com/FrontiersIn>

@WileyUpdates <https://twitter.com/WileyUpdates>

(link: https://youtu.be/f02cMUo9Jjo) youtu.be/f02cMUo9Jjo
<https://t.co/eL5ndYVVu3?amp=1>



Cheers



Sam






From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 02:21:38 +0000

This is why I think it would be very interesting to know whether Frontiers
was the only publisher that had a hand in formulating the requirements of
Plan S. Schneider and Anderson have put forward evidence that Frontiers was
involved – but were others involved as well?



If Frontiers was the only publisher that helped to shape Plan S, then
whether their involvement constitutes “foul play” (not a term I’ve used or
a concept I’ve hinted at) is an open question, one that I don’t think we
could resolve without more information. It would certainly be reasonable to
question the appropriateness of one particular publisher helping to
formulate a policy that ends up favoring that publisher.



As for the term “conspiracy theory”: if you feel that it’s an appropriate
characterization of the proposition that Frontiers was involved in the
creation of Plan S, then feel free to use it. I haven’t said you shouldn’t
use that term. I’ve just pointed out that characterizing the proposition as
a conspiracy theory doesn’t magically make the evidence of Frontiers’
involvement go away. In other words, to the degree that we’re using
“conspiracy theory” as an epithet designed to dismiss or shut down
discussion of the issue, I think that’s inappropriate. If that’s not the
intention of those using the term, then I have no particular objection to
it.



---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

Desk: (801) 587-9989

Cell: (801) 721-1687

[log in to unmask]





From: "Jan Erik Frantsvåg" <[log in to unmask]>

Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:03:11 +0000

Rick,

I see no need to deny Frontiers was engaged in the creation of Plan S. They
obviously were. And it would be stupid to guess Frontiers had the interests
of science foremost in their minds, Frontiers is a business.



But making that a major point, strongly hinting of “foul play”, suggests
this was something special. If you want to do that, you need to demonstrate
it. That hasn’t been done. Until that has been shown to be true, the term
“conspiracy theory” would seem apt? It is a theory, on so far uncertain
foundations, and it has strong overtones of hinting of a conspiracy. No
wonder someone mentioned the term …



Now, I fully understand the reluctance to dig up more information, that
often takes a lot of energy. But if it is dirt there, someone actually has
to dig it up, not only strongly hint it (probably/possibly) exists.



- jan erik



[SNIP]