From: <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 09:15:18 +0100 Hi all, Don’t really want to get sucked into this, but am struggling with the framing of Plan S as the idea of a single person shaped only by a single person’s conversations. There are a wide array of organisations within cOAlition S, and many (including the European Commission) have had consultations with a wide array of stakeholders on every conceivable aspect and element of OA over many years. This broader context is missing from the current discussion. With best wishes, Alicia *Dr Alicia Wise* Director Information Power Ltd +44 7305795887 @wisealic From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 02:21:38 +0000 This is why I think it would be very interesting to know whether Frontiers was the only publisher that had a hand in formulating the requirements of Plan S. Schneider and Anderson have put forward evidence that Frontiers was involved – but were others involved as well? If Frontiers was the only publisher that helped to shape Plan S, then whether their involvement constitutes “foul play” (not a term I’ve used or a concept I’ve hinted at) is an open question, one that I don’t think we could resolve without more information. It would certainly be reasonable to question the appropriateness of one particular publisher helping to formulate a policy that ends up favoring that publisher. As for the term “conspiracy theory”: if you feel that it’s an appropriate characterization of the proposition that Frontiers was involved in the creation of Plan S, then feel free to use it. I haven’t said you shouldn’t use that term. I’ve just pointed out that characterizing the proposition as a conspiracy theory doesn’t magically make the evidence of Frontiers’ involvement go away. In other words, to the degree that we’re using “conspiracy theory” as an epithet designed to dismiss or shut down discussion of the issue, I think that’s inappropriate. If that’s not the intention of those using the term, then I have no particular objection to it. --- 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 Erik Frantsvåg" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:03:11 +0000 Rick, I see no need to deny Frontiers was engaged in the creation of Plan S. They obviously were. And it would be stupid to guess Frontiers had the interests of science foremost in their minds, Frontiers is a business. But making that a major point, strongly hinting of “foul play”, suggests this was something special. If you want to do that, you need to demonstrate it. That hasn’t been done. Until that has been shown to be true, the term “conspiracy theory” would seem apt? It is a theory, on so far uncertain foundations, and it has strong overtones of hinting of a conspiracy. No wonder someone mentioned the term … Now, I fully understand the reluctance to dig up more information, that often takes a lot of energy. But if it is dirt there, someone actually has to dig it up, not only strongly hint it (probably/possibly) exists. - jan erik From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 00:10:03 +0000 Responding to both Jean-Claude and Jan Erik -- A survey of all communication between Smits and all of those he consulted while designing Plan S really would be very interesting, and undoubtedly enlightening. One could even argue that since Plan S is a plan for the allocation of public funds, the public has a right to see those communications. But given what it took just to gain access to Smit’s communications with Frontiers, it seems unlikely that he’s willing to share that information. I’d be happy to ask him if the list is interested. He has responded to questions from me in the past. As for the term “conspiracy theory”: what’s been presented by Leonid Schneider and Kent Anderson is specific evidence that Frontiers was involved in the creation of a policy that ended up clearly benefiting Frontiers (and other publishers that work on the same model). Obviously, people will have different opinions as to whether this evidence is convincing, and if so, whether Frontier’s involvement in the creation of Plan S is a matter for serious concern. But simply incanting the magic phrase “conspiracy theory” doesn’t make the evidence of Frontier’s involvement go away. --- 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 Erik Frantsvåg" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 12:52:30 +0000 My reading is that this is targeted at creating distrust of the process by implying collaboration beyond what is acceptable, between Smits and Frontiers. I notice, following the links in Rick Anderson’s post following yours, a lot of “seems” that indicate this is – presently – just speculation. A survey of all communication between Smits and other central Plan S people, and publishers, would be more interesting. But it may not show anything making blogging worthwhile? Were Elsevier, Springer/BMC, PLOS, MDPI, Hindawi and other larger publishers really left out of the conversation – against their will? To me, the major problem with Plan S is that Smits et al. obviously has a view of scholarly publishing as being done nearly solely by major commercial companies, forgetting all the small-scale publishing being done – OA or TA. The final requirements, fortunately, took into account some of the criticism made. But the small and/or non-commercial publishers of OA journals will still face problems, so will current TA publishers. So, yes, more consolidation will probably be the result. If that means making the bigger bigger, that is lamentable. But if it means making the smaller less small, I think it could be a good thing. Jan Erik Frantsvåg From: JJE Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2019 17:16:34 -0400 I think the point of the story is not that Frontiers is overrepresented but that Smits's insistence that publishers were surveyed before the promulgation of Plan S is, at best, a gross exaggeration. But does it matter? Funders are going to do what they are going to do. Researchers will either comply or lose their funding. Publishers will either find a way to create compliant venues or they will not. So Frontiers benefits, but a small society publisher is put under and has to sell or license rights to one of the big commercial publishers, whose scale makes it possible to make money with low APCs. That's the likely (unintended) consequence: more industry consolidation and fewer independent society publishers. Joe Esposito On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 2:42 PM LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: From: "Jan Erik Frantsvåg" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 06:28:52 +0000 I am sceptical. Not that I think the facts are made up, but I see no trace of any activity to look for communication with other publishers – why only Frontiers? I have seen scholars saying that Plan S is perfectly suited to Frontier’s business models, implying less suited for the business models of other publishers. I fail to see that Frontier’s business model is uniquely suited to Plan S, it fits most APC-based/commercial OA publishers. Robert-Jan Smits has said that Plan S was developed partly based on consultations with publishers. Unless someone can document Frontiers was massively over-represented in this process, I will remain sceptical to the value of this story. Best, Jan Erik Jan Erik Frantsvåg Open Access Adviser The University Library UiT The Arctic University of Norway phone +47 77 64 49 50 e-mail [log in to unmask] http://en.uit.no/ansatte/organisasjon/ansatte/person?p_document_id=43618&p_dimension_id=88187 Publications: http://tinyurl.com/6rycjns http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3413-8799 From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2019 12:54:38 -0700 This came across my screen today, making me aware that I know too little about the author of the post, the publisher involved, and the other facts known about the origins and development of Plan S. Is this posting credible and how could it help me think about the plan and the issues? https://forbetterscience.com/2019/07/11/frontiers-and-robert-jan-smits-emails-reveal-how-plan-s-was-conceived/ Jim O'Donnell ASU