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]