From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:22:54 +0000 Dear Saskia and all, I had not looked before at the Fair Open Access definitions. They (the definitions) miss out what some of us think of as the main purpose of publishing value added particularly the learned society publishers. It is all about processing. Nothing wrong with platforms but surely this is not publishing in the way it has been understood. Anthony From: Saskia de Vries <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 16:25:41 +0000 Dear all, dear Anthony, I was asked by Xenia to share her answer to Anthony as she is not a member of this list, but it does clarify the questions Anthony posed. In our Fair Open Access breakdown (see https://www.fairopenaccess.org/breakdown-of-publication-services-and-fees/) publishers are free to add or skip categories if that reflects their publishing process in a better way. This conversation shows again that the practice of publishing can differ enormously. One of the results our FOA breakdown hopes to reach is that funders, librarians, authors, editors and publishers realize this once again. All best, Saskia ******* Dear Anthony, I am not member of this liblicense list, but Saskia was so kind to forward you comment to me. Indeed, Copernicus works different as many other publishers, so maybe some people would call us a publication plattform. We do not have in-house editors (one exception: we recently empoled a managing editor for our data journal Earth System Sceince Data) and the learned societies acquire editors themself, so our publications are scholar-led. We have close contact to the societies not regarding the sceintific contnet but regarding operational issues and general best practices (data policy, publication ethics, etc.). In many cases, members of our staff attend editorial board meetings but again this is to clairfy more “logistical” questions e.g. regarding indexing. I hope this helps. If you have any more question, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Kind regards, Xenia **************************************************** Copernicus.org Meetings & Open Access Publications Dr. Xenia van Edig Business Development From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2020 10:01:32 +0000 Copernicus operate a very different model from the one that I am used to. As a publisher it was not only my job to oversee and take responsibility for all the processes described by Copernicus – the buck has to stop somewhere – but I spent most of my time keeping in touch with the different disciplinary communities in which I worked. If the company in which I worked as the owner of the journal how otherwise to you know enough to select the editor, assist the editor with some sort of knowledge and monitor progress. If the owner of the journal was a learned society it was expected that I worked closely with them and attend all their meetings and other relevant meetings. This is not a part of the job only for journals publishers. I am told by book people in the university press world that probably 50% of their costs goes on the costs of the publishers keeping in touch with the disciplines in which they work. Among my past roles was head of journals at Oxford University Press and previously mathematics editor. I no longer work for a publisher so I am not up to date but look on the business from the outside as you can see from my signature line. Anthony Anthony Watkinson Principal Consultant CIBER Research Honorary Lecturer University College London Research Associate Oxford Brookes University Director Charleston Library Conference From: Saskia de Vries <[log in to unmask]> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 09:37:19 +0000 FYI This is to inform you that we published our APC breakdown: https://publications.copernicus.org/apc_information.html. All elements can be ticked to complete the graphic. We just posted our news item: https://www.copernicus.org/news_and_press/. So you can circulate the info in the group etc. Thanks and best regards, Xenia van Edig