Cambridge University Press issues public statement on Plan S | Cambridge University Press

“We fully endorse the benefits of open research and recognize the recent announcements about Plan S as an important contribution to the conversation about the ongoing transition.

There is a wide range of views about how to move forward with open research across different parts of the global academic community, which means the debate about how it should develop needs a process of wide consultation, as happened with the UK’s Finch report on open access six years ago.

We believe there are a number of specific developments which could help open research and its longer-term sustainability, including areas we have been working on such as:

1)    Wider adoption of new business models which have been put in place in some countries, particularly models allowing APC-free open access including read-and-publish deals;

2)    Improvements to the hybrid journal model to support academic communities where a full transition to open access isn’t yet possible;

3)    A community standard for a fair and balanced Green OA policy, with publishers supporting institutions to meet funders’ open access requirements;

4)  Ensuring academic freedom for researchers about where they can publish….”

Publisher Communications about the UC OA Policies – Office of Scholarly Communication

“Though the vast majority of publishers that UC authors work with have been aware of UC’s Senate OA policy for over four years, very few of them have asked authors to opt out of the policy by getting a waiver, and those who have requested waivers have done so inconsistently.  No publisher has notified the University that it plans to request waivers from all UC authors as a matter of course. Based on two years of waiver requests by UC faculty, it appears that authors publishing with Nature, PNAS, AAAS, and ARRS are generating the greatest number of waivers.

Below are the number of waivers requested by UC authors between August 2, 2013, when the UC-wide senate policy was announced, and August 1, 2018. …”

Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem: Report, Slides, Video Available Online | Association of Research Libraries® | ARL®

Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem (TOME) is a five-year pilot initiative to advance the wide dissemination of scholarship by humanities and humanistic social sciences faculty members through open editions of peer-reviewed and professionally edited monographs. Scholars face growing difficulty in finding publishers for their monographs as academic library budgets shrink and demand for monographs falls. The Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Research Libraries (ARL), and Association of University Presses (AUPresses) formally launched TOME in 2017 to collaboratively address this problem.

OASPA Turns 10 – OASPA

“OASPA celebrated our 10th anniversary yesterday, marking ten years of representing the interests of open access journal and book publishers globally.

Founded on October 14th, 2008, OASPA has now spent a decade striving to fulfill our mission to develop and disseminate solutions that advance open access, preserve the integrity of scholarship, and promote best practice, supporting the transition to a world in which open access becomes the predominant model of publication for scholarly outputs and ensuring a diverse, vibrant, and healthy open access market that supports a wide variety of innovative solutions and business models….”

What is ‘Plan S’ and Why Are Many Publishers Worried? – Publishing Perspectives

” “With Plan S there has been a lack of consultation, a lack of consideration, a lack of detail, and a lack of time,” said Malavika Legge, acting director of publishing for Portland Press and the Biochemical Society, at an event on Thursday called “Get Smart About Plan S.”

Plan S is said to stand for science, speed, solution, and shock. Moreover, it is clear from the reactions on the stage that “shock” sums up what the publishers on stage feel about the radical open access plan announced only on September 4 by the European Research Council. The plan is supposed to be implemented by 2020, which in the timescale of publishing is—as Legge says—“already here.”\

Bewilderment may be a better word for the mood of the session whose participants all claimed to be committed to open access publishing. …

The panelists felt that even if Plan S accelerates the transition to open access publishing, it still represents an existential attack on the academic publishing industry. While some publishers say they are staring into the headlights of Plan S like a deer, others say it should be a call-to-arms by the industry to challenge the stereotype that all they care about is profit.”

The STM Report An overview of scientific and scholarly publishing: Fifth edition, October 2018

“Average publishing costs per article vary substantially depending on a range of factors including rejection rate (which drives peer review costs), range and type of content, levels of editorial services, and others. The average 2010 cost of publishing an article in a subscription-based journal with print and electronic editions was estimated by CEPA to be around £3095 (c. $4,000), excluding non-cash peer review costs. An updated analysis by CEPA in 2018 shows that, in almost all cases, intangible costs such as editorial activities are much higher than tangible ones, such as production, sales and distribution, and are key drivers in per article costs (page 73).

The potential for technology and open access to effect cost savings has been much discussed, with open access publishers such as Hindawi and PeerJ having claimed per article costs in the low hundreds of dollars. A recent rise in PLOS’s per article costs, to $1,500 (inferred from its financial statements), and costs of over £3,000 ($4,000) per article at the selective OA journal eLife call into question the scope for OA to deliver radical cost savings. Nevertheless, with article volumes rising at 4% per annum, and journal revenues at only 2%, further downward pressure on per article costs is inevitable (page 74)….

 Gold open access is sometimes taken as synonymous with the article publication charge (APC) business model, but strictly speaking simply refers to journals offering immediate open access on publication. A substantial fraction of the Gold OA articles indexed by Scopus, however, do not involve APCs but use other models (e.g. institutional support or sponsorship). The APC model itself has become more complicated, with variable APCs (e.g. based on length), discounts, prepayments and institutional membership schemes, offsetting and bundling arrangements for hybrid publications, read-and-publish deals, and so on (page 97)….

It is unclear where the market will set OA publication charges: they are currently lower than the historical average cost of article publication; and charges for full open access articles remain lower than hybrid, though the gap is closing. Calls to redirect subscription expenditures to open access have increased, but the more research-intensive universities and countries remain concerned about the net impact on their budgets (page 101; 139). …

Recent developments indicate a growing willingness on the part of funders and policymakers to intervene in the STM marketplace, whether by establishing their own publication platforms, strengthening OA mandates or acting to change the incentive structures that drive authors’ publication choices (page 113). …

Concerns over the impact of Green OA and the role of repositories have receded somewhat, though not disappeared. The lack of its own independent sustainable business model means Green OA depends on its not undermining that of (subscription) journals. The evidence remains mixed, with indications that Green OA can increase downloads and citations being balanced against evidence of the long usage half-life of journal articles and its substantial variation between fields. In practice, however, attention in many quarters has shifted to the potentially damaging impact of Social Collaboration Networks (SCNs) and pirate websites on subscriptions (pages 114; 174). …” 

Complaint to the European Ombudsman about Elsevier and the Open Science Monitor | Zenodo

A formal complaint to the European Commission Ombudsman regarding the relationship between Elsevier and the Open Science Monitor. Submitted to them on July 05, 2018.

The latest version now includes a full response from the European Commission. See the Annex file, which can be annotated/commented on using THIS LINK and Hypothes.is….”

The expansion of open access is being driven by commercialisation, where private benefit is adopting the mantle of public value

“Plan S is the latest initiative to propose that all publicly funded science should be available in open access formats from the day of first publication. However, John Holmwood argues it is important to recognise that open access is itself being promoted in the name of commercial interests, including new, for-profit disrupters but also the large publishing conglomerates capturing the production and distribution of open access platforms. Open access mandates risk excluding authors unable to pay article processing charges, and also pose a threat to the learned societies and not-for-profit publishers which have done much to support their epistemological communities, particularly in the humanities and social sciences….”

Ubiquity supports Plan S to make open access the standard by 2020

“Ubiquity welcomes the announcement of ‘Plan S,’ launched earlier this month by cOAlition S. This promising new initiative comes from 11 national funding organizations with the support of the European Commission and the European Research Council. We share the excitement of many organizations within the Open community, such as SPARC EuropeLIBER, and OpenAIRE, about this ambitious push to make open access the standard in academic journal publishing by 2020….”

OASPA Offers Support on the Implementation of Plan S – OASPA

“The following statement was written by the members of OASPA’s Board of Directors:

The Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA) is a community of publishers and related organisations committed to supporting the transition to a world in which open access becomes the predominant model of publication for scholarly outputs. OASPA therefore welcomes the launch of Plan S, recently announced by a coalition of 11 leading funding agencies from across Europe, with the support of the European Commission and the European Research Council, as an important step in the transition towards full and immediate open access for scholarly research.”