The future of scientific publishing – Sarr – 2019 – BJS – Wiley Online Library

“The advent of social media, more recently the focus and emphasis on open access publishing, and now the unprecedented creation of open access journals, have led to many challenges and also potential opportunities for publishers, authors and even editors of established scientific journals. Although change is good, and an opportunity, serious academics should be aware of the potential ramifications of these forces if we do not attempt actively to preserve the integrity of the scientific word. This editorial will address two aspects of the current world of publishing that threaten the future of scientific investigation: first, the move to making all journals open access, and, second, the viral proliferation of open access journals and its effects, both real and theoretical….”

Ecography’s flip to a pay‐to‐publish model – Araújo – – Ecography – Wiley Online Library

“The Nordic Society Oikos (NSO) has decided to flip Ecography from a pay?to?read model to a pay?to?publish model. All papers published after the flip, in January 2020, will become open access immediately. As a bonus, all published papers since 1997 will be also free to read.

According to NSO, the main reason for the flip is that the subscription income of Ecography is insufficient to cover the costs of publication. NSO has decided that, given the current changes in the publication landscape, the best strategy to guarantee the future of Ecography is to change its funding model.

As senior editors of Ecography (i.e. Editor?in?Chief and Deputy?Editors?in?Chief), we witness these changes with mixed feelings. On the one hand we acknowledge that there is little justification for limiting readers’ access to the scientific literature under a pay?to?read model. Most of the research published by journals is funded by taxpayers’ money and the general public should have the right to access it freely from any Internet terminal.

In an information?driven society, it is also disingenuous to allow fake news to roam freely on the Internet, while keeping the highest?standard information ever created by humankind behind paywalls. A better world will no doubt emerge from open science.

On the other hand, we share with many others the concern that a pay?to?publish system will increase inequality among authors….

The frequent flyer’s programmes of airline companies inspires the system we propose. Essentially, reviewers of manuscripts should obtain, for each review they perform for Ecography, a voucher that is worth a specified discount on the billed open access fees of their next paper in Ecography, valid for a specified time period. Within the same time window, editors will obtain vouchers worth a specified discount for every year of service.

We also propose that discounts can be granted for those that do not have institutional support or other means of paying Open Access fees. An author’s ability to pay should not influence any aspect of the review process, including the decision on whether or not the manuscript is accepted for publication….”

flashPub

“We focus on making micropubs visibile, citable, and usable in compelling research narratives that engage the community and inspire new lines of inquiry….

We will never charge subscription fees or APCs for academic users. All researchers are welcome to publish!…

All content is deposited in leading public repositories, ensuring your contributions are preserved and acessible forever….

Our peer review system balances the benefits of open review and the value of traditional review. It’s fast, easy, and to the point….”

 

Plan S and Humanities Publishing – The Scholarly Kitchen

It is widely recognized that HSS and its publishing industry are different (and less profitable). As a publisher in those fields, one could easily be tempted to ask funders for exceptions to policies that push for a faster transition to OA – out of fear that we might become collateral damage in a process that hit us like a storm. One year after Plan S, I think to do so would be a huge mistake.

It is very simple: if we ask for exceptions for HSS, the research we publish will not be able to transition to open with the same speed as STM. As a consequence, HSS research would not be visible as much, would generate less impact and would be even more pushed to the background when budgets are distributed. HSS would be left behind.

We not only need to accelerate OA – increase the speed of transition – but, more importantly, we need to expand the possibilities to transition to OA beyond the APC model. HSS research is highly relevant and deserves to be open. By being more open, HSS can have a greater impact on society and contribute more efficiently to making this world a better place. As HSS publishers, we need to speak up for the communities we serve and help them defend their position in a competitive research landscape. With the right plan for a transition to more openness, HSS will not only survive but thrive in the future and unfold their full potential….”

Peter Suber: The largest obstacles to open access are unfamiliarity and misunderstanding of open access itself

I’ve already complained about the slowness of progress. So I can’t pretend to be patient. Nevertheless, we need patience to avoid mistaking slow progress for lack of progress, and I’m sorry to see some friends and allies make this mistake. We need impatience to accelerate progress, and patience to put slow progress in perspective. The rate of OA growth is fast relative to the obstacles, and slow relative to the opportunities.”

Peter Suber: The largest obstacles to open access are unfamiliarity and misunderstanding of open access itself

I’ve already complained about the slowness of progress. So I can’t pretend to be patient. Nevertheless, we need patience to avoid mistaking slow progress for lack of progress, and I’m sorry to see some friends and allies make this mistake. We need impatience to accelerate progress, and patience to put slow progress in perspective. The rate of OA growth is fast relative to the obstacles, and slow relative to the opportunities.”

How do monographs fit with the open access agenda? | Jisc

In the UK, the push towards open access (OA) monograph publishing dates back to at least 2013. That was the year the Wellcome Trust included monographs and book chapters in its OA policy and the former higher education funding body for England, HEFCE, posed a number of questions relating to open access monographs in its Research Excellence Frameworkconsultation….”

How do monographs fit with the open access agenda? | Jisc

In the UK, the push towards open access (OA) monograph publishing dates back to at least 2013. That was the year the Wellcome Trust included monographs and book chapters in its OA policy and the former higher education funding body for England, HEFCE, posed a number of questions relating to open access monographs in its Research Excellence Frameworkconsultation….”

Learned Societies, the key to realising an open access future? | Impact of Social Sciences

“Plan S, a funder led initiative to drive open access to research, will have significant impacts on the ways in which academics publish and communicate their research. However, beyond simply changing the way academics disseminate their research, it will also influence how learned societies, the organisations tasked with representing academics in particular disciplines, operate, as many currently depend on revenues from journal subscriptions to cross-subsidise their activities. In this post Alicia Wise and Lorraine Estelle explore this issue and provide an update from the first phase of the SPA-OPS [Society Publishers Accelerating Open access and Plan S] project that has been tasked with assessing the options available for learned societies to make the transition to open access….

A significant finding from our study was that only a small proportion of all the models we assessed involved APC payments. There are numerous other business models, many of these are more promising, and all are aligned with Plan S. Whilst the APC is the best known route to delivering open access journals, at least 1000 society journals have already flipped from a hybrid to full OA model, we believe this approach has become over-conflated with open access. If society publishers are realistically going to make an open transition, then they need to transform their existing revenue streams to support OA publishing….”

Open Access Plans — S, T, U, so far | SciELO in Perspective

In a few earlier posts1,2, I have mentioned, and commented on, Plan S. In September of 2018, immediately after Plan S was presented, Tim Vines published a post on The Scholarly Kitchen3 in which he argues that Plan S, based on funding open access with Article processing Fees (APCs) should be scrapped and instead, OA should be financed by submission fees. He called his idea Plan T (I guess because T follows S in the alphabet). It is an old idea, but a valid one. I have for a long time been in favor of submission charges. After all, getting a paper reviewed and accepted in a journal is like doing an exam, to get a driver’s licence, for instance. One has to pay for such an exam, whether or not one passes or fails. Tim Vines uses the example of a dental check up in his post. You don’t just pay if the dentist finds a cavity to fill or a tooth to extract….

The same day that Tim Vines’ post was published, Richard Sever (of Cold Spring Harbor Publishers and bioRxiv) reacted by firing off a tweet which said: “Plan U: just mandate preprint deposition and let a downstream ecosystem of overlays/journals with various business models evolve in response to community needs. Side benefit: speeding up science massively…”4

Now we’re talking. This is entirely in line with what I proposed in 2015 [in a blog post]5. At first, Plan U appeared on a web site, planu.org, which was anonymous, undated, and doesn’t exist anymore. However, on June 4th, 2019, a formal article entitled “Plan U: Universal access to scientific and medical research via funder preprint mandates”6 appeared in the journal PLOS Biology. There is no reason whatsoever why this Plan U should not take off, although it may initially go slowly, given the usual inertia in the scientific community at large.

Plan U offers science communication everything it needs. Rapid sharing of research results via preprints, without the sometimes high cost of APCs; options of obtaining peer review and formal journal publication afterwards. And the latter, which can be expensive, only if and when necessary for funding or career development. It even may make the differences between open access and subscription journals fairly irrelevant for the dissemination of research results, as an open access version of every article will in any way be guaranteed via the preprint….”