From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 09:25:01 -0400

The Scholarly Kitchen piece by Angela Cochran focuses on different ways
publishers may respond to Plan S, assuming Plan S gets any traction. There
will be more strategies. The number of journals will multiply if there is
an economic incentive to multiply; the number will shrink if that's where
the incentives lead. The people behind Plan S appear to believe that they
are issuing a once-and-for-all policy for all of scholarly publishing.
Nothing in Plan S (to date) implies a pluralism of viewpoints and
interests, and certainly nothing implies any creativity on the part of
people who work in this field or who will be attracted to this field by
emergent opportunities. That's the flaw--not the policy but the failure to
recognize that people are creative.

Joe Esposito
-- 
Joseph J. Esposito
[log in to unmask]
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito


On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 9:35 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 14:31:14 -0700
>
> entia non multiplicanda sine necessitate -- that's the Latin for Occam's
> razor:  Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity.  Twice in the
> last week, a particular multiplication of entities has brought that old
> principle to mind.  Once in a posting from Europe and now today in a very
> lucid posting on Scholarly Kitchen,
> https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/10/29/are-mirror-journals-a-better-path-to-the-open-access-flip/,
> the possibly is being mooted of breaking apart existing journals cleanly,
> so that there would be, I take it, Journal-of-Palaeobotany-Subscriber and
> Journal-of-Palaeobotany-OA.
>
> The piece on SK makes the argument that doing the bookkeeping on hybrid
> journals is ineffective -- leading either to double-dipping or what is
> almost as bad, strong suspicion of double-dipping -- and that the
> European-advanced notion of 'flipping' journals by reworking the funding
> flow so that current subscribers effectively pay about what they pay now in
> order to provide OA to the rest of the world.
>
> The hybrid and the two-journal models have in common that they expect the
> main change to be a concentration of financial responsibility on fewer and
> fewer players (research-producing institutions more than research-consuming
> institutions), while expecting regions of the world with burgeoning
> research productivity to step up immediately to the costs of publishing in
> proportion to how much they publish.  Could this result in an incentive to
> scientists to publish less?  Would that be a good outcome for us all?
>
> Jim O'Donnell
> ASU
>