Jean-Claude, as an analyst I offer the following observations.
1. It is true that Plan S offers an optional compliance method that would
allow authors to publish OA in hybrid journals. In fact it would allow
them to publish in purely subscription journals. It is, as you indicate,
immediate repository deposit in open form with a CC-BY licence. But these
terms are such that most publishers do not presently allow, so it is
something of a phantom option, as it were. Thus there is a de facto ban
on hybrid publishing in most journals.
This green option is probably best regarded as a way publishers might
choose to comply with in the future, instead of flipping their journals.
But I would not claim that it presently exists to such a degree that
hybrids are not banned.
2. The cost disclosure rules would almost certainly keep the US Federal
Government from adopting Plan S. That business accounts are proprietary
is pretty fundamental here.
David
At 05:37 PM 11/17/2018, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:
In response to the criticisms
aimed at Plan S
(
https://sites.google.com/view/plansopenletter/open-letter), the Fair
Open Access Alliance has issued its own answer:
The Open Letter: Reaction of Researchers to Plan S: too far, too
risky.
A response of the Fair Open Access Alliance
We write to provide a counter view to the recent open letter (“Plan
S: Too Far, Too
Risky†),
[
https://sites.google.com/view/plansopenletter/open-letter] partly
based on our FOAA recommendations for the implementation of Plan S.
[
https://www.fairopenaccess.org/2018/10/21/foaa-recommendations-on-the-implementation-of-plan-s/
]
We are glad to note that the researchers who have signed the open
letter support open
access as their very first principle. However, the letter itself goes
on to make a number
of highly problematic and logically fallacious statements with which
we strongly disagree
and here contest.
More broadly, the letter fails to provide any solution to address the
problematic situation
academia has maneuvered itself into with regards to scholarly
publishing. As it stands,
the open letter is a set of demands on the funders, without any
responsibility assumed
by the researchers themselves for the ongoing serials crisis, nor for
providing solutions.
In this document we review the items in the open letter
systematically.
[SNIP]