From: "Jean-Claude Guédon" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 11:13:27 -0400 The whole recent debate about academic freedom is related to Plan S emanating from Europe. It should be noted, in this regard, that Plan S does not say anything about where people should publish. In effect, it simply says that they will not take articles published in hybrid journals into consideration in the subsequent round of grant selections. Authors can publish where they want. They only have to calculate the consequences with some funding agencies. And if people are so exercised about this hybrid-journal exclusion, how about military or industry-financed research in the universities that usually contain constraints on publishing at all? Jean-Claude Guédon Le mardi 23 octobre 2018 à 19:40 -0400, LIBLICENSE a écrit : From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 07:40:30 +0100 I entirely agree. As an academic researcher now (through retirement) outside the system of getting funds I can only have some idea of what academics want through the research (research on researchers) we do – and we have not explored this particular question since about 2005. Academic researchers are represented by their learned societies and professional associations at national, European and international level. Why are they (mostly) silent? Anthony From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2018 18:47:44 +0000 To the degree that academic freedom is about faculty rights, then maybe the best way to gauge the legitimacy of “freedom to publish” as an academic-freedom issue would be to ask faculty what they think about it. Is “freedom to publish” something that they consider to be an important element of academic freedom? Of course, the degree to which academic freedom really is about faculty rights varies somewhat from place to place. In the US, the only formal definition we have of academic freedom is the one contained in the American Association of University Professors’ 1940 statement, which explicitly includes “full freedom... in publication” as a pillar of academic freedom ( https://tinyurl.com/jzz7su3). Here, academic freedom is definitely about faculty rights, but it’s a professional convention rather than a legal right. In the UK, a definition of academic freedom is actually written into law, but is defined at the institutional rather than the individual level and therefore is arguably not about “faculty freedoms” at all ( https://tinyurl.com/yblgkqn6). In any case, it does seem to me that the legitimacy or falsity of “freedom to publish” as an issue is a question that we ought to put to the academics—not (anticipating the usual objection here) because they’re the only ones with a legitimate interest in the issue, but because they definitely represent one group with a legitimate interest. --- 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: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 09:55:33 +0100 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