I cannot see why “freedom for publish” is a false issue. OK if your government wants to restrict freedom to publish it means they (through their funding agencies) restrict freedom to publish. Maybe Jean-Claude likes this sort of government behaviour – the word “authoritarian” springs to mind – but not every does. We know where he stands now.
However as a researcher I am mainly concerned with the last two paragraphs. These assertions are interesting but where is the evidence? I am actually interested from a research point of view to know about the evidence because I have not come across it.
Anthony
From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]>
To: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 08:28:46 -0400
I cannot claim to inhabit Robert-Jan Smits' mind, but I have met him face-to-face, and my impression is that he would probably treat university presses very much in the same spirit as society publishers. At the same time, his priorities appear very much focused on the STEM disciplines,which is a constant problem all around, and in the European Commission in particular. Social sciences and humanities are getting the short end of the stick, and this is a mistake. But it explains the neglect, the ever-present neglect, of monographs.
The issue of "freedom to publish" is a false issue. My harsh answer to those who object about hybrid journals not being supported is that: if you do not want such conditions on your research grants, do not accept the research money. A funding agency already tries to orient research through the definition of its programmes, and through rules you have to follow for the use of the funds, etc. If that funding agency then demands open access and does not support the hybrid perversion of open access, it is perfectly within its rights. The EC pilot project for post FP-7 grants rejected hybrid journals as well. Norway has gone the same route. Etc. etc. The one who pays can choose the tune!
There is another element to consider here: the reason why many hybrid journals are sought after by researchers is not for quality reasons, but for prestige, status and visibility reasons. It might be time to focus back on quality. One good way to improve Plan S would be to stress this crucial distinction and foreground quality.
One last point. Very high quality will demand high rejection rates; however, the converse is not true: high rejection rates may exist for reasons other than quality. So when prestigious journals lean on their high rejection rates, let us remember that the argument is hollow.
Jean-Claude Guédon.
Le jeudi 18 octobre 2018 à 04:18 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit :
From: "SANFORD G THATCHER" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 01:14:32 -0400
This is the best short article I have yet read explaining what Plan S is all about and how it challenges traditional publishing models in a radical way. I can't help wondering when Plan S enthusiasts will start turning their attention to scholarly monographs.
Meanwhile, I have added these comments to the article:
Smits expresses concern for nonprofit society publishers. I wonder if he is concerned also about nonprofit university presses, which will surely be affected by Plan S, especially if it begins to be applied to HSS fields and not just STEM fields.
One unintended consequence of Plan S might be to drive faculty to turn to their universities more for APC support than they already do, so as to preserve their freedom to publish wherever they feel will most advance their careers? This would, ironically perhaps, burden academic libraries even more because they are usually where university administrators turn to fund APC subsidies while these libraries would continue to have to subscribe to the prestigious journals that do not go along with Plan S. Better be careful about what you wish for!
Sandy Thatcher
On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 05:18 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >
>From: Ann Shumelda Okerson [log in to unmask]>
>Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 12:36:14 -0400
>
>Any guesses about what the US will do to respond to Mr. Smits' visit?
>
>Physics Today, October 11, 2018
>
>"Publishers of scientific journals are facing renewed threats to their >business models from both sides of the Atlantic. As European science >funders promote a radical new open-access (OA) publishing mandate they >unveiled last month, the Trump administration is considering changes >to a five-year-old directive governing the public release of research >literature sponsored by federal agencies."
>
>https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20181011a/full/#.W8U3JSqvkCo.twitter