From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 02:52:26 +0000 Given that the “key principle” of Plan S is that funded research “must be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms,” and that the ninth principle says that “the ‘hybrid’ model of publishing is not compliant with the above principles,” can someone explain where the idea comes from that there exists an optional compliance method that would allow funded authors to publish in hybrid journals? --- 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: Jan Velterop <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 13:37:48 +0200 David, How would the requirement for an “immediate repository deposit in open form with a CC-BY licence” effectively “ban” hybrid? That’s not the OA hybrid that I would recognise as such, given that authors would not get proper OA for their APCs in such journals. Jan Johannes (Jan) J M Velterop On 19 Nov 2018, at 00:27, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: *David Wojick* <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, Nov 18, 2018 at 12:20 PM 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* <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/* <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]