From: Kent Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 21:08:55 -0400
To weigh in here, I have asked other OA publishers, and there is no
evidence that any but Frontiers worked closely with Smits on Plan S. This
was probably a matter of familiarity (the Markrams, who own Frontiers, and
Smits have known each other for years), and proximity (Switzerland is easy
for Smits to visit).
Smits was focused on leveraging funders to influence publishing policies.
He appears to have expended minimal effort in speaking with publishers. It
appears he talked with old friends mostly, and then made a couple of token
tours of big publishers.
Kent
Kent Anderson
Founder, Caldera Publishing Solutions
[log in to unmask]
774-288-9464
On Jul 16, 2019, at 8:36 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 00:10:03 +0000
Responding to both Jean-Claude and Jan Erik --
A survey of all communication between Smits and all of those he consulted
while designing Plan S really would be very interesting, and undoubtedly
enlightening. One could even argue that since Plan S is a plan for the
allocation of public funds, the public has a right to see those
communications. But given what it took just to gain access to Smit’s
communications with Frontiers, it seems unlikely that he’s willing to share
that information. I’d be happy to ask him if the list is interested. He has
responded to questions from me in the past.
As for the term “conspiracy theory”: what’s been presented by Leonid
Schneider and Kent Anderson is specific evidence that Frontiers was
involved in the creation of a policy that ended up clearly benefiting
Frontiers (and other publishers that work on the same model). Obviously,
people will have different opinions as to whether this evidence is
convincing, and if so, whether Frontier’s involvement in the creation of
Plan S is a matter for serious concern. But simply incanting the magic
phrase “conspiracy theory” doesn’t make the evidence of Frontier’s
involvement go away.
---
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: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:52:30 +0000
My reading is that this is targeted at creating distrust of the process by
implying collaboration beyond what is acceptable, between Smits and
Frontiers. I notice, following the links in Rick Anderson’s post following
yours, a lot of “seems” that indicate this is – presently – just
speculation.
A survey of all communication between Smits and other central Plan S
people, and publishers, would be more interesting. But it may not show
anything making blogging worthwhile? Were Elsevier, Springer/BMC, PLOS,
MDPI, Hindawi and other larger publishers really left out of the
conversation – against their will?
To me, the major problem with Plan S is that Smits et al. obviously has a
view of scholarly publishing as being done nearly solely by major
commercial companies, forgetting all the small-scale publishing being done
– OA or TA. The final requirements, fortunately, took into account some of
the criticism made. But the small and/or non-commercial publishers of OA
journals will still face problems, so will current TA publishers.
So, yes, more consolidation will probably be the result. If that means
making the bigger bigger, that is lamentable. But if it means making the
smaller less small, I think it could be a good thing.
Jan Erik Frantsvåg
From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 17:16:34 -0400
I think the point of the story is not that Frontiers is overrepresented but
that Smits's insistence that publishers were surveyed before the
promulgation of Plan S is, at best, a gross exaggeration.
But does it matter? Funders are going to do what they are going to do.
Researchers will either comply or lose their funding. Publishers will
either find a way to create compliant venues or they will not. So Frontiers
benefits, but a small society publisher is put under and has to sell or
license rights to one of the big commercial publishers, whose scale makes
it possible to make money with low APCs. That's the likely (unintended)
consequence: more industry consolidation and fewer independent society
publishers.
Joe Esposito
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 2:42 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> 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
|
