> Perhaps not all 'hybrid' journals offer proper CC-BY OA, and confusion about what
> 'hybrid' actually means and the possibility that hybrid journals might not accept the
> APC cap, may have led to the statement that "the ‘hybrid’ model of publishing is not
> compliant with the above principles".
So Jan, are you suggesting that the explicit prohibition on hybrid publication that is currently embedded in the terms of Plan S arises from confusion on the part of Plan S’s creators as to what “hybrid” means? If so, it sounds like you’re suggesting that you believe this confusion will be rectified and the terms of Plan S subsequently clarified such that publication in hybrid journals is no longer prohibited – is that correct?
> Constructive engagement with the initiators of Plan S and the supporting funding
> agencies should be the way to make progress and achieve clarity.
I couldn’t agree more. I and several other people have been asking Robert-Jan Smits (very respectfully, I might add) to clarify the position of Plan S on this question, and so far have received no response. Some constructive engagement would be most welcome.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
From: Velterop <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 13:25:14 +0100
The key principle:
“After 1 January 2020 scientific publications on the results from research funded by public grants provided by national and European research councils and funding bodies, must be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms.”
and the first additional principle:
"All publications must be published under an open license, preferably the Creative Commons Attribution Licence CC BY."
seem to leave the option open. An article in a hybrid journal that is CC-BY-licensed and immediately published on a "compliant Open Access Platform" as well as in the journal (as should be possible if the hybrid journal offers true open access), would satisfy these principles. Perhaps not all 'hybrid' journals offer proper CC-BY OA, and confusion about what 'hybrid' actually means and the possibility that hybrid journals might not accept the APC cap, may have led to the statement that "the ‘hybrid’ model of publishing is not compliant with the above principles".
The Wellcome Trust seems clearer. They say "We will no longer cover the costs of OA publishing in subscription journals. [These are hybrid journals, because those are the only subscription journals that publish paid-for OA articles. JV] Grant applicants cannot ask for these costs in their grant application, and grantholders will not be allowed to use their grant funds to pay for these costs."
Which, to me, means that researchers are allowed to publish in hybrid journals, but that they'll have to find the funds to pay for the APCs elsewhere.
Their core requirement is open access:
"All research articles supported in whole or in part by Wellcome must be: 1) made freely available through PubMed Central (PMC) and Europe PMC by the official final publication date, and 2) published under a Creative Commons attribution licence (CC-BY)."
Constructive engagement with the initiators of Plan S and the supporting funding agencies should be the way to make progress and achieve clarity.
Jan Velterop
Plan S: https://www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Plan_S.pdf
Wellcome Trust Open access policy 2020: https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wellcome-open-access-policy-2020.pdf
Noordland 44
2548 WB 's-Gravenhage (The Hague)
Nederland (The Netherlands)
+31 707611166 (landline)
+44 7525026991 (mobile)
Voormalig adres (Previous address):
C2 Trinity Gate, Epsom Road
Guildford, Surrey, GU1 3PW
United Kingdom
On 20/11/2018 04:45, LIBLICENSE wrote:
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
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