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.

[log in to unmask]