From: "Jan Erik Frantsvåg" <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:18:57 +0000 A bit difficult to follow the debate, with one daily dose of e-mails and a stream of tweets that are difficult to follow. I agree that this is an interesting topic, and I must confess I had expected the process to be a bit more outreaching than it looks like it has been. Alicia makes a good point, though – Smits wasn’t the only one discussing with others. I wonder, though, if OASPA or AEUP were consulted – they represent important publisher interests. Looking at the list of publishers in Sam Burrells post, it looks like a number of publishers have been consulted, and they represent both pure OA publishers and “mixed-model” publishers – more of the latter, actually. That makes me a bit more relaxed, Plan S probably would look the same even if more publishers had been involved. Everyone cannot be included in such a process, and there was an open process with commenting on the plan, this resulted in changes in Plan S requirements. And the non-hybrid clause in Plan S obviously made it despite opposition from most of the publishers consulted. The small, not-for profit publishers are the ones who have been very underrepresented in this debate. Jan Erik Frantsvåg From: Rick Anderson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 23:56:22 +0000 That’s a good point, Alicia – and I don’t think anyone believes that Plan S was entirely formulated by Robert-Jan Smits and Frontiers. But the question remains: among one particular group of stakeholders (the publishers), which ones had a voice in determining what the requirements of Plan S would be? If some publishers had a voice while others didn’t, which ones were they, and how were they selected? Is there publicly-available information that outlines how the consultations took place and who was involved? (Obviously I’m talking about consultations that led to the formulation of the principles, as opposed to the public consultation that took place after the principles had already been formulated.) Apologies if this information is out there and I’ve missed it. (The cOAlition S website doesn’t provide any such information as far as I can determine.) --- 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: <[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] *[SNIP]*