From: Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:08:50 +0100
Rick,
There are at least four big issues related to science publishing, all
to do with sustainability of the system: pre-publication peer review,
publication-based researcher assessment, open access, and the
subscription model. Plan S addresses the latter two, and unfortunately
doesn't seem to clearly separate them, and even conflate them (though
they are, of course, related).
First open access (true OA, i.e. CC-BY or equivalent). That is the
core principle of Plan S. Science is not sustainable in the medium and
long term without it. Given the relentless increase in articles being
published every year, the cost of subscriptions (incl. access
licences) would grow beyond the capacity to pay for them of most,
possibly all, institutions. It makes the subscription system
unsustainable. And given the uniqueness of every article, making
choices on the basis of financial considerations isn't a realistic
prospect. Because access to all published material in a given field is
needed if one wants to avoid "searching for the key under the lamp
post where there is light, instead of where the key might be found."
In fact, the developments of semantic analyses of large volumes of
scientific content can bring significant benefits to scientific
discovery (see, for instance, this already decade-old article about
the discovery of novel protein-protein interactions from the
literature: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774517/). It
goes without saying that such analyses are best done on comprehensive
corpora of articles, and to be able to do that, access to the full
text is a necessity. If open access were nigh universal, the benefits
to science in terms of knowledge discovery would be significant, even
phenomenal.
Plan S then also wants to get rid of the unsustainable subscription
system, and that seems to include in the way they presented that as a
ban on 'hybrid' journals. Except, it isn't. What the funders behind
Plan S do not want, is pay for hybrid journals, not even in the form
of APCs for OA articles, because of the subscription-supporting role
that those journals still have. That's their good right as funders and
guardians of public research funds. As said, the Wellcome Trust is
clearer about these matters. I am confident that Plan S will soon
provide that clarity as well.
The confusion I mentioned seems to concern the question of why hybrid
journals are considered part of the subscription problem instead of
part of the OA solution.
Jan Velterop
On 23/11/2018 04:01, LIBLICENSE wrote:
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2018 01:25:05 +0000
> Perhaps not all 'hybrid' journals offer proper CC-BY OA, and confusion about what
> 'hybrid' actually means and the possibility that hybrid journals might not accept the
> APC cap, may have led to the statement that "the ‘hybrid’ model of publishing is not
> compliant with the above principles".
So Jan, are you suggesting that the explicit prohibition on hybrid
publication that is currently embedded in the terms of Plan S arises
from confusion on the part of Plan S’s creators as to what “hybrid”
means? If so, it sounds like you’re suggesting that you believe this
confusion will be rectified and the terms of Plan S subsequently
clarified such that publication in hybrid journals is no longer
prohibited – is that correct?
> Constructive engagement with the initiators of Plan S and the supporting funding
> agencies should be the way to make progress and achieve clarity.
I couldn’t agree more. I and several other people have been asking
Robert-Jan Smits (very respectfully, I might add) to clarify the
position of Plan S on this question, and so far have received no
response. Some constructive engagement would be most welcome.
---
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: Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:25:14 +0100
The key principle:
“After 1 January 2020 scientific publications on the results from
research funded by public grants provided by national and European
research councils and funding bodies, must be published in compliant
Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms.” and the
first additional principle:
"All publications must be published under an open license, preferably
the Creative Commons Attribution Licence CC BY."
seem to leave the option open. An article in a hybrid journal that is
CC-BY-licensed and immediately published on a "compliant Open Access
Platform" as well as in the journal (as should be possible if the
hybrid journal offers true open access), would satisfy these
principles. Perhaps not all 'hybrid' journals offer proper CC-BY OA,
and confusion about what 'hybrid' actually means and the possibility
that hybrid journals might not accept the APC cap, may have led to the
statement that "the ‘hybrid’ model of publishing is not compliant with
the above principles".
The Wellcome Trust seems clearer. They say "We will no longer cover
the costs of OA publishing in subscription journals. [These are hybrid
journals, because those are the only subscription journals that
publish paid-for OA articles. JV] Grant applicants cannot ask for
these costs in their grant application, and grantholders will not be
allowed to use their grant funds to pay for these costs."
Which, to me, means that researchers are allowed to publish in hybrid
journals, but that they'll have to find the funds to pay for the APCs
elsewhere.
Their core requirement is open access:
"All research articles supported in whole or in part by Wellcome must
be: 1) made freely available through PubMed Central (PMC) and Europe
PMC by the official final publication date, and 2) published under a
Creative Commons attribution licence (CC-BY)."
Constructive engagement with the initiators of Plan S and the
supporting funding agencies should be the way to make progress and
achieve clarity.
Jan Velterop
Plan S: https://www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Plan_S.pdf
Wellcome Trust Open access policy 2020:
https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wellcome-open-access-policy-2020.pdf
On 20/11/2018 04:45, LIBLICENSE wrote:
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 02:52:26 +0000
Given that the “key principle” of Plan S is that funded research “must
be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open
Access Platforms,” and that the ninth principle says that “the
‘hybrid’ model of publishing is not compliant with the above
principles,” can someone explain where the idea comes from that there
exists an optional compliance method that would allow funded authors
to publish in hybrid journals?
---
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]
|
