From: Brian Simboli <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:31:03 -0500
Professor Hinchliffe,
Many thanks for the clarification. I cannot now distinctly recall what led
me to associate, synaptically, Plan S <https://www.coalition-s.org/about/>
with transformative agreements, in relation to the conference. Please
forgive the elision if in fact Plan S was not advocated or even discussed
publicly at the conference. Perhaps it was a sense that pressures from
European models, which have emerged in a much different funding
framework, now exert implicit but tremendous pressure to eventuate
something in the U.S. much akin to Plan S.
I would ask whether much of the library community in the U.S. agrees with
the aims of Plan S. My guess is: for very many librarians, yes. But not
being an expert on scholarly publishings, even if it is great fun to follow
the trends very imperfectly given a multiplicity of librarian duties, I
defer to those far more knowledgeable on all these matters.
Anyhow, it is not clear that the elision does not affect my criticisms
of transformative
agreements
<https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/open-access-at-uc/publisher-negotiations/negotiating-with-scholarly-journal-publishers-a-toolkit/an-introductory-guide-to-the-uc-model-transformative-agreement/>.
But perhaps the understanding of the latter phrase is not widely agreed
upon and so the criticisms need adapting, *mutatis mutandis, *according to
various definitions or understandings.
My own interest in these initiatives is in how preprints offer a way to
address many of the OA movement's goals, in an environment in which there
already seems to be so much free back-content available, albeit with
embargoes. I was just working on subscription cancellations and was
impressed by how much freely accessible back-content there is, and how it
(plus already purchased perpetual access to content) can figure in
cancellation decisions.
I'm personally happy with low-cost subscription/toll-access pricing for
embargoed content, within (once again) a seriously contracted journal space
(contraction based on principles of scientific communication, wholly
independent of OA concerns) a la something like Bradford's law.
What is the alternative? Taxpayer funding of APCs via grant funds and via
library funding at public institutions, with opportunity costs for use of
those funds. The philosophical grounds for using taxpayer funding to
address problems in journal-land remain unexplored. Not to mention the
longstanding bankrolling by institutions of so many salami-sliced journal
articles. The business and economic assumptions that underlie the
transformative goals also, imo, remain unexplored, or at least open to
debate as to their unintended consequences.
As usual, just my views, not those of my employer.
Brian Simboli
[log in to unmask]
<http://listserv.crl.edu/wa.exe?LOGON=A3%3Dind1911%26L%3DLIBLICENSE-L%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D280855%26B%3D--000000000000786f1805971ab3f4%26T%3Dtext%252Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3DUTF-8%26pending%3D>
--
Brian Simboli
Science, Mathematics, and Psychology Librarian
Library and Technology Services
E.W. Fairchild Martindale
Lehigh University
8A East Packer Avenue
Bethlehem, PA 18015-3170
From: "Hinchliffe, Lisa W" < <[log%C2%A0in%C2%A0to%C2%A0unmask]>
[log in to unmask]
<http://listserv.crl.edu/wa.exe?LOGON=A3%3Dind1911%26L%3DLIBLICENSE-L%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D280855%26B%3D--000000000000786f1805971ab3f4%26T%3Dtext%252Fhtml%3B%2520charset%3DUTF-8%26pending%3D>
>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 01:40:08 +0000
Hmmm... I certainly heard a lot about transformative agreements at
Charleston (and said a lot about them!) but I don't recall anyone in the US
talking about Plan S features like refusal to allow publication in hybrid
journals, requiring CC-BY unless specifically petitioning, or - most Plan S
- a single additional US based funder say they are planning to adopt the
principles. Perhaps we were in different sessions but I'd say open access,
yes but Plan S, no.
Lisa
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
|
