Plan S and the ultimate measure: Is it good for research? Campbell
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•311 views
Colleen Campbell, OpenAccess 2020 When launching the principles of Plan S last September, cOAlition S gave this motivation: “The subscription-based model of scientific publishing emerged at a certain point in the history of science, when research papers needed extensive typesetting, layout design, printing, and when hardcopies of journals needed to be distributed throughout the world. While moving from print to digital, the publishing process still needs services, but the distribution channels have been completely transformed. There is no valid reason to maintain any kind of subscription-based business model for scientific publishing in the digital world, where Open Access dissemination is maximising the impact, visibility, and efficiency of the whole research process.”While many stakeholders in scholarly communication welcomed the decisive move towards the realisation of full and immediate Open Access to scholarly publications by 2020, certainly not all of the 900+ feedback responses received by cOAlition S were positive. Many found the principles too restrictive, too fast. Publishers have been advised that they “may charge fair value for [services that help scientists to review, edit, disseminate, and interlink their work] in a transparent way”, but Society publishers, in particular, are concerned that a shift away from the subscription business model will inhibit their ability to fulfil their mission of the advancement of science. Researchers have been told they “must realise that they are doing a gross disservice to the institution of science if they continue to report their outcomes in publications that will be locked behind paywalls”, but some say that implementation of Plan S Principles in the current landscape will come with grave infringement of their academic freedom. And what of libraries? Has their role in the research process and scholarly communication been overlooked or empowered by Plan S? In this plenary session, key representatives from each of these stakeholder groups will share their authoritative perspectives on Plan S Implementation and its implications for research and the audience will be invited to participate in the discussion
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Plan S and the ultimate measure: Is it good for research? Campbell
Similar to Plan S and the ultimate measure: Is it good for research? Campbell (20)
More from UKSG: connecting the knowledge community
More from UKSG: connecting the knowledge community (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Plan S and the ultimate measure: Is it good for research? Campbell
- 1. Colleen Campbell Open Access 2020 Initiative │ Max Planck Digital Library UKSG 42nd Annual Conference 10 April 2019│Telford, UK Plan S and the ultimate measure: Is it good for research? @oa2020ini
- 2. @oa2020ini 1 Why Plan S? We all agree that open access is a good thing. It increases the visibility of our research, and it’s something the taxpayers deserve. „
- 3. @oa2020ini 2 Why Plan S? We are interested in using text-mining to learn from the scientific literature. OA articles can be more readily obtained, analyzed, and curated. Those which are part of traditional subscriptions cannot be readily studied in this way. „
- 4. @oa2020ini 3 Why Plan S? Every time a sensible person gets a simple explanation of the current system, the reaction is disbelief — that smart people have been doing this stupid thing for so long, and it’s been so, so expensive. „
- 5. @oa2020ini 4 Why Plan S? There is no valid reason to maintain any kind of subscription-based business model for scientific publishing in the digital world Marc Schiltz, Science Europe „
- 6. @oa2020ini 5 Reality of open access
- 11. @oa2020ini 10 Spending must shift away from paywalls toward open access publishing services Subscription system Open Access 7.6 Bn EUR cash flow
- 12. @oa2020ini 11 Open Access 2020: a global initiative to address publishers at eye level https://oa2020.org/b14-conference/final-statement/
- 14. @oa2020ini 13 Cost-neutral transformation is possible “All German research articles in Wiley journals to be published open access under new transformative agreement” https://www.hrk.de/press/pr ess-releases/press- release/meldung/wiley-and- projekt-deal-partner-to- enhance-the-future-of- scholarly-research-and- publishing-in-germany/
- 15. @oa2020ini 14 Transformation is not just about APCs
- 16. @oa2020ini ESAC Transformative Agreement Registry http://esac-initiative.org/about/transformative-agreements/
- 17. @oa2020ini 16 It is not one country or policy that will effect transformation, but our alignment Transformative agreements From read access To open access
- 18. @oa2020ini 17 Thank you! Colleen Campbell Open Access 2020 Initiative Max Planck Digital Library campbell@mpdl.mpg.de @ColleenCampbe11 https://oa2020.org Participate in OA2020 Accelerate the transition
- 19. @oa2020ini Transformation strategy based on the 80/20 rule others Subscription publisher OA publisher transformation agreement
- 20. @oa2020ini Five of our top 20 publishers are OA publishers others Subscription publisher OA publisher transformation agreement
- 21. @oa2020ini In 2017 we had four transformative agreements in place others Subscription publisher OA publisher transformation agreement
- 22. @oa2020ini Today we are every closer to our goal of 100% open access others Subscription publisher OA publisher transformation agreement
- 23. @oa2020ini 22 Resources http://esac-initiative.org/ Transformative agreements (ESAC Initiative) Open Access 2020 Executive Summary https://oa2020.org/Executive-Summary.pdf Data on Article Processing Charges (OpenAPC Initiative) https://treemaps.intact-project.org/ Open Access 2020 Resources https://oa2020.org/learn_more/#gain Participate in the Open Access 2020 Community contact@oa2020.org
Editor's Notes
- Abstract: The Open Access 2020 Initiative unites research performing organizations from around the world with a shared objective: accelerate the transition to open access. Institutions who participate in OA2020, represented by their libraries, expand their open access strategies to include tactics aimed specifically at repurposing the funds currently expended in subscriptions into funds that support open access publishing—essentially withdrawing their financial support of the paywall system. Similarly, the research funding community, united in cOAlition S, has established Plan S principles to accelerate the transition to open access, driving an end to the paywall system including the so called ‘hybrid’ variants. Together, these two global initiatives work in synergy on both sides of the scholarly communication chain to drive systemic change, and libraries have a vital role to play in this transition! Notes: Plan S and OA2020 work in synergy EUA survey, and upcoming tender Societies and the cOAlition S (Alicia Wise study) Germany even if not part of it, does not mean we cannot Berlin Final Statement Bielefeld workshop - collaborative writing, KU was there and SWOT analysis and will collect it into a best practice report. EUA is also interested in this. Jens was responsible for that so be in touch with him. (conscious of green road, DEFF is shifting and will be moved to National Library) Plan S: CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES (hybrid)
- Karen Bales, psychology professor at UC Davis and chair of the campus Academic Senate research committee, as quoted in the Los Angeles Times
- Steven Brenner, a professor of plant & microbial biology at UC Berkeley, as quoted in The Daily Californian
- Don Moore, professor at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley, as quoted by the UC Berkeley Library
- ….where Open Access dissemination is maximising the impact, visibility and efficiency of the whole research process.
- As Patron Demand for Digital Services upward trajectory (as Louise showed us yesterday in the graph). In past focused on access to content, but now think about “access” in a wider perspective. Think of text mining (we can offer the technology, but if we cannot interrogate the body of content behind paywalls, missing a huge piece of knowledge), digital humanities, digital use and reuse of scholarship Want to advance open scholarship BUT researchers want to publish in the journals they know and trust Help academic staff make sense of what is happening and navigate scholarly communications. Need to be PROACTIVE We cannot stand still, we need to be anticipating Subscriptions have no place in the digital world Today we demand everything immediately, fast-paced, everything at our fingertips. But science—most important—is hidden from us. Capabilities of using research in new ways with technology, but in order to articles to be published they sign away the rights…have to pay again to use the fruits of their own research. Server log data for the website Sci-Hub from September 2015 through February paint a revealing portrait of its users and their diverse interests. Sci-Hub had 28 million download requests, from all regions of the world and covering most scientific disciplines.
- They affirmed that there is a strong alignment among the approaches taken by OA2020, Plan S, the Jussieu Call and others to facilitate a full and complete transition to open access. The statement that follows represents the strong consensus of all of those represented at the meeting. We are all committed to authors retaining their copyrights, We are all committed to complete and immediate open access, We are all committed to accelerating the progress of open access through transformative agreements that are temporary and transitional, with a shift to full open access within a very few years. These agreements should, at least initially, be cost-neutral, with the expectation that economic adjustments will follow as the markets transform. Publishers are expected to work with all members of the global research community to effect complete and immediate open access according to this statement. Participants from 37 nations and five continents, representing research performing and research funding institutions, libraries and government higher education associations and rectors’ conferences, associations of researchers and other open access initiatives gathered at the 14th Berlin Open Access Conference held 3-4 December 2018 in Berlin. They affirmed that there is a strong alignment among the approaches taken by OA2020, Plan S, the Jussieu Call and others to facilitate a full and complete transition to open access. The statement that follows represents the strong consensus of all of those represented at the meeting. We are all committed to authors retaining their copyrights, We are all committed to complete and immediate open access, We are all committed to accelerating the progress of open access through transformative agreements that are temporary and transitional, with a shift to full open access within a very few years. These agreements should, at least initially, be cost-neutral, with the expectation that economic adjustments will follow as the markets transform. Publishers are expected to work with all members of the global research community to effect complete and immediate open access according to this statement.
- Transformative agreements are those contracts negotiated between institutions (libraries, national and regional consortia) and publishers that transform the business model underlying scholarly journals from subscription to open access. As the vast majority of scholarly publishing and expenditure of any given institution tends to be concentrated in journals produced by a relatively small number of publishers, implementing transformative agreements with these publishers constitutes a high-impact strategy: many institutions and consortia find that by negotiating such agreements with fewer than 10 publishers, they can achieve immediate open access for the vast majority of their outputs. They have a variety of configurations that reflect the diverse and fluid landscape of scholarly communication, starting with “offsetting” through to the recent “Publish & Read, or PAR” model, and more. Agreements continue to evolve as they are increasingly adopted around the world and the body of evidence on their impact grows. Put into practice, instead of paying fees for access to journals behind subscription paywalls, funds are repurposed to remunerate publishers for their editorial services associated with the open access publication of accepted articles. In most models, fees are articulated at the article level or in proportion to the number of articles published, disbanding the lump-sums fees of subscriptions that are largely based on legacy print expenditures. The fundamental principles of transformative agreements include that they are temporary and transitional meaning that they are no end in itself but rather provide a framework in which a swift and irreversible shift away from the subscription model can be organized, affecting the financial and operational changes required for a fully open access publishing paradigm. Requirements and guiding principles for the negotiations of transformative agreements have been published by libraries and library consortia around the world which demonstrates the ongoing effort of the comunity to shape the new busisness model and to improve transparency and efficiency. With our ESAC registry, we want to contribute to that process.
- ~10.000 articles a year complete and immediate open access Authors are guaranteed academic freedom Authors retain copyright, can use and re-use their work Scholars and society learn from and build on the latest research Departure from the subscription logic Costs are transparent and transactions at the article level The PAR fee itself is a key transitional element in that it builds a bridge for the previous total subscription expenditure of German institutions to be shifted to support the country’s research output under a realistic publication scenario while at the same time minimizing the risk of massive financial disruption for both parties. The PAR fee of this contract is unique to the German setting and constitutes a context-specific balance between a given historic situation and an anticipated future objective. Others may find inspiration in this principle but should not be preoccupied with the figure as such, as the starting point will be different in other contexts. Operational compliance with open access workflows Forward-looking processes and systems Prepare for transition at scale To clarify and avoid misunderstandings, we have summarized below the key points to the agreement between Wiley and Project DEAL, which we can publish before February 15, 2019: 1. Continuous access to Wiley's entire portfolio of electronic journals ("perpetual access") for all participating institutions. These are currently about 1,700 titles (subscription journals, as well as original open access journals). 2. Permanent archive rights for all participating institutions to the entire journal portfolio back to the year of publication 1997. 3. Publishing articles in Open Access to all Submitting Corresponding Authors from eligible institutions in Wiley's journals (both in the original open access journals and in the subscription titles), usually under a CC-BY license. We assume a volume of nearly 10,000 articles per year. 4. Agreement on a fair and sustainable Publish & Read cost model. The total price is calculated annually from the agreed Publish & Read fee (in short: PAR fee) and the number of articles published annually in accordance with No. 3 (based on subscription titles). This covers both the publication of the above-mentioned articles ("publish") in Open Access and the reading access to the entire electronic portfolio of subscription periodicals ("read") for the period from 2019 to 2021. There are no additional costs for the reading access. The PAR fee is not equivalent to a hybrid APC (article processing charge). A key figure-based individual participation fee is calculated for the participant facilities, which is based on the previous license payments and the publication volume. The individual scientists do not incur any separate costs. Wiley's Gold Open Access Journals will be granted a 20% discount on APC list prices. The billing of the APCs is also done centrally by the participating institution.
- Not sure if this slide is effective. I would remove.
- SN began in 2016. Then in beginning 2017 we had RSC (2 year agreement), T&F was a 2017 3-year agreement. T&F year one was subscription spend and all Oa publishing, but they do not have a good workflow. Had agreed we pay up front and then adjust at year end, they had bad analysis and so in the end they had to give loads of cred. Year 3 is true pay to pubish, but we have credit form year 2 and lower article output than T&F expected. They had thought that the publications would increase because of the agreement, but we have NEVER seen an increase in publication because of any central agreement. This year T&F are really suffering because effects are hitting their books this year. We do not have access to full portfolio but only a selection, but finding a new agreement will be a big challenge. Margit working on analysis. Will have a first call on March 26. T&F realizes they will have a major loss and wonder what we can do. Our goals is to see how we go forward after this year (access to more of the portfolio or what?), and if they agree for a good way forward for 2020, then we can decide about current year. For example now we have only 10% of the portfolio (and actually that is fine with us), but at least we can justify. Maybe we will have to include a reading fee. The risk was all on our side. RSC – we started with 2017-2018 agreement but now have a new agreement beginning 2017 for another 2 years. Not easy to get that renewed, had some price increase. In this case our sub spend was particularly low so shifting to OA publishing requires us to invest significantly. Has not been easy.
- OUP – signed. OA component 2019-2020. Was a long time coming, had aimed to start in 2018, but took forever so could not do retrospective 2018 and so shift to 2019. OUP did not want longer than 2 years. Not a really clean model. Local OA costs are now centralized, have a minimum OA component in the central agreement on top of the subscription spend (but corresponds to what was already being paid). Significant increase in 2nd year but less than what OUP had asked for. Lump sum for OA publishing. Part of the subscription costs will be offset – had previous subscription cost and decentralized OA, done with an increase in year 2 but take part of the subscription amount in year 1 (30%) in year 2 (almost 60%) designated toward OA. In year 2 more than half of the money paid to OUP can be used for open access. It IS transformative. The money allotted toward OA or offset goes on to pre-payment account and APCs deducted. (ask Tina what happens if use up APC pot). EDP Sciences, actually 1 title Astronomy & Astrophysics (the major title) – 2-year pilot agreement. Annual sum. Assume about 100 articles are published a year but since this was a new agreement for EDP sciences we presume they will not successfully identify all of them. Amount of 50KEuro is not capped – if they process more articles correctly do not get more money. Totally a pilot agreement, EDP Sciences very interested in seeing how it will work. Agreements active but no contract signed. Sage – Least transformative of our agreements. Not negotiated by MPDL but consortium agreement by the Bayerisch. Traditional subscription and highly discounted APC. (cannot say exactly hybrid APC is only 200 pounds with respect to the usually 1500+). Hybrid component is centralized with MPDL, also have a discount on pure gold but does not go centrally. Looking for DFG funding still. Agreements active but no contract signed. CUP – consortium negotiated by Bayerisch, but we took their agreement and built on top of it to our own customization. Consortium itself is only for hybrid and we built on top a pure gold OA component. For hybrid have traiditonal sub cost and pay additional fee and all corresponding author papers are covered, not a very high fee – it is in proportion to publication output. Not an offset component but it is a cosmetic fee. CUP needed something in order to accept, and for us we agreed because we knew that it would still be within limits of what is paid locally. In our analysis the pub fee is only about 3-4 APCs but we publish more on the level of 40. Gold OA is pay as you publish, but done centrally. ACS already signed in March We are happy – we pay less than the list price APC for immediate OA CC-BY. Normally would be 4K$ but we pay less. We have subscription cost – increase/decrease will depend on how the portfolio will develop. If they move, for example, some titles from sub to gold then our cost will go down. Allowance for OA publishing –if we exceed we will pay more, but if we publish less the money will be carried over. Full sub spend converted to OA publishing. No reading fee component. Based on publishing trend, we will not pay more – would be on the level of what we have been paying central sub plus local OA. If we publish more, we will pay more, but the point is it is a truly OA transformative agreement. (Wiley only pure gold OA as of 22 January, hybrid will start in July)