Hi Glenn, all,

A big problem I see in many of the current discussions around Plan S (including statements made in the open letter) is that it makes assumptions that are not currently corroborated by the preamble and principles:

1) that Plan S will focus on an APC-based gold OA (nowhere in the plan is diamond OA, and support therefore, excluded)

2) that issues of evaluation (as you state: "issues like impact factors, peer review, publish or perish pressures") will not be addressed as part of the plan (partipating funders explicitly commit to "commit to fundamentally revise the incentive and reward system of science, using the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)4 as a starting point"). 

Now we will have to see how and to what extent both these points (as well as the position of green OA) will be addressed in the implementation plan, that has been promised to become available for public consultation at the end of November. I for one am reserving judgement until then.  

kind regards, Bianca 

From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Glenn Hampson <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 18 November 2018 22:56:00
To: [log in to unmask]; 'LIBLICENSE'; 'scholcomm'

Hi Jean Claude,

No one has demonstrated that Plan S will hurt science? What kind of evidence are you looking for? Quite a number of individuals and institutions have expressed their concerns that lower-resourced researchers (from smaller institutions, from the global south, and from outside universities) will be unable to fully participate in an APC-centric publishing world. Many researchers have expressed reservations about how their ability to communicate through established channels with their peers will be impeded. And still other researchers have expressed concerns that CC-BY requirements will affect competition, credit, and other factors central to science. Perhaps you are correct that no one has demonstrated definitively that Plan S will hurt science, but neither have we really bothered yet to take the many concerns about this plan seriously.

I used to be a carpenter, Jean-Claude, and the oldest maxim in carpentry is “measure twice, cut once.” If our intent is to regulate science to this degree, then we really need to understand the full array of possible consequences before we go rushing headlong into implementing solutions, especially ones like Plan S that are so transformative.

With regard to dire problems, here again, some will point out that the current system is not collapsing. For most researchers it serves them just fine, thank you (hence the inertia and lack of urgency that have bedeviled reform efforts). Costs certainly need to be addressed, and a global flip may help lower overall costs (for some more than others), but there are still going to be costs---still just a fraction of overall research spending, but again impacting some more than others so not inconsequential. Addressing these costs is important, but APCs are not the only possible way to do so. Also, cost (as in figuring out how we’re going to pay for this) is only a small part of the open puzzle. In order to make open reforms truly effective and sustainable, we also need to focus on a broad palette of reforms to the entire system without which scholarly publishing will remain “disrupted”--- issues like impact factors, peer review, publish or perish pressures, deceptive publishing, and more. With Plan S, we are jumping to conclusions, and jumping over problems that need to be fixed now in order to really make open workable.

Again, though, it’s fantastic that so many people are tuning in---maybe this will be the initiative to build on.

Best,

Glenn 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)

Hi Jean-Claude,

Thank you for sharing this response (I am forwarding it to the OSI list since we’re actively debating this issue as well). I’m sure you’ll agree that there are valid points in both the open letter and the response---it’s a complex issue made more complex by the flexibility of the plan and speculation about its implementation and impact.

What I personally think needs to be pushed back on are two statements made in the response: 

1. “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” This is true of course, but public funders at least (perhaps less so private funders) have a responsibility to ensure that they are serving science. It is callous and even arrogant to tell researchers to just go find their funding elsewhere if they don’t like the conditions being imposed on their research. And,
2. “The [open] Letter offers plenty of unargued criticism, but no viable alternative to the currently unsustainable academic publishing landscape. Worse, it fails to grasp the opportunities offered by Plan S to do so.” It is true that our community’s initial reaction to this plan has been polarized. Where we go from here is important. We can harden our positions, or we can capitalize on all this attention and visibility to try to improve this plan and address the concerns that have been raised about it. There are indeed opportunities here, but valid concerns as well. It isn’t necessarily incumbent on the critics to come up with a better plan. Hopefully, if we’re all serious about improving the future of open, we can keep the lines of communication open and listen to the criticisms, and together come up with a Plan S-2.0 that is widely embraced.

Thanks again for sharing.

Best regards,

Glenn

 

Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)