Det europeiske forskingsrådet (ERC) trekker støtte til Plan S

“The ERC, together with funders of research throughout Europe, has been behind the demand for open publication of research which is laid down in the so-called Plan S.

Now the collaboration is abruptly over.

In recent months, the ERC’s Scientific Council has “intensified the internal debate and reached a unanimous decision”, the press release states, and the result is that they will end their cooperation with Coalition S and work on the introduction of Plan S.

The Norwegian climate researcher Eystein Jansen, who is a professor at the University of Bergen, is a member of the Scientific Medical Council and has been involved in the unanimous decision. He tells Khrono that the decision has been made after thorough assessments….

Director of the Research Council, John-Arne Røttingen, is one of the leading figures in the international work on Plan S.

– The decision in the ERC comes as a big surprise, and the timing is strange, says Røttingen.

– When we established Plan S, we got the Scientific Council of the ERC on the team, and they played an important role in shaping the plan and the implementation plan.

He assures that the decision in the ERC will not affect the changes in financing terms that are planned to be introduced from 1.1. 2021. Since the EU Commission is allocating the money to the ERC’s budget, Røttingen believes that the ERC’s change of course will not put a stop to the plans for open publication as set out in Plan S.

– It is the EU Commission that set the framework for all project funding that is provided. The commission has wholeheartedly assured that they support Plan S and the implementation plan, says Røttingen….”

The ERC and Plan S: an open letter | by George Walkden | Jul, 2020 | Medium

“I was dismayed to read your press release of 20th July announcing that you are withdrawing your support from cOAlition S and Plan S. I was even more dismayed to see that you rationalized this based on the needs of “young researchers who represent the future of European science and innovation”, arguing that the unavailability of APC funding for hybrid journals under Plan S is detrimental to early career researchers. As a young researcher and ERC Starting Grant awardee myself, I would like to take this opportunity to state categorically that I do not recognize this argument as valid.

The harm that hybrid journals cause to the ecosystem of scholarly publishing is well known. In particular, through “double dipping” — charging subscription fees at the same time as full APCs for Open Access articles — publishers of such journals are able to appropriate a far greater quantity of public funds than would otherwise be possible. Pinfield et al. (2015) demonstrate empirically, in a UK context, that double dipping is not merely a theoretical issue, but a genuine problem; they also show that hybrid journals charge on average vastly higher APCs than fully Gold Open Access journals, strongly suggesting that funding Open Access publication in hybrid journals represents bad value for money….”

Surprise and confusion over ERC Council’s Plan S reversal – Research Professional News

“Groups representing young researchers have expressed surprise at the decision of the European Research Council’s governing Scientific Council to withdraw its support from the Plan S open-access initiative.

Under Plan S, a group of funders known as Coalition S will require researchers they support to make their work openly available immediately from 2021 in outlets that meet certain criteria. The requirements are being adopted in the EU’s 2021-27 R&D programme Horizon Europe, including the ERC.

The ERC Council, an independent body of researchers that helps to set the strategic direction of the EU funder, had previously expressed its support for Plan S, but on 20 July it announced a U-turn, saying the impact of Plan S on young researchers and countries with limited funds had been underestimated. In particular, the ERC Council expressed concern about Plan S terms for publication in hybrid journals that offer both subscription and open-access options….”

Stony Brook University Author Perspectives on Article Processing Charges

Abstract:  INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to gain an understanding of Stony Brook University (SBU) author perspectives on article processing charges (APCs). Publishing an article without restrictions, also known as open access publishing, can be a costly endeavor. Many publishers charge APCs ranging from hundreds to thousands of dollars to publish an article without access restrictions. Authors who cannot obtain funding from grant agencies or their institution must pay APCs on their own. Do APCs fundamentally impact how authors choose their preferred publication venues? METHODS A cross-sectional survey was designed to learn SBU author perspectives on, and concerns about, APCs. RESULTS Responses mainly came from the sciences. Many SBU authors preferred to publish in a prestigious journal or journal of their choice rather than in an open access journal. Most authors published their articles in open access journals even if they were required to pay APCs. Many authors found that it was difficult finding funding for APCs and some expressed their concerns about the double charging practice. DISCUSSION SBU authors might believe that publishing in established and prestigious journals could secure their career’s advancement. Authors who chose to pay open access journals with APCs might be following publishing criteria. Libraries can encourage authors to negotiate with publishers to obtain a discount or waiver of APCs, when possible. Institutions should negotiate shifting journal subscription costs toward hybrid open access publishing. CONCLUSION Data will be used to inform how the SBU Libraries can help authors locate funding opportunities for APCs.

 

cOAlition S Response to the ERC Scientific Council’s Statement on Open Access and Plan S | Plan S – [https://www.coalition-s.org/coalition-s-response-to-the-erc-scientific-councils-statement-on-open-access-and-plan-s/]

“cOAlition S remains firm in its view that support for hybrid journals has failed to accelerate the transition to full and immediate Open Access over the past two decades. The already scarce funding in the Horizon Europe Framework Programme should not be used for the payment of publication fees in hybrid journals. Indeed, outside of transformative agreements, the hybrid model has no effective means to keep double-dipping by publishers in check. For this reason, many European countries, from Germany to Hungary, have recently put in place transformative agreements with publishers.

Maintaining the current status quo on hybrid journals will exacerbate inequalities among European researchers, since only those that benefit from generous funding will be able to cover expensive publication fees. In contrast, the cOAlition S Rights Retention Strategy which provides Open Access in compliance with Plan S via the repository route, will empower all researchers to publish in their journal of choice, including subscription and hybrid journals.

cOAlition S is particularly attentive to the concerns of Early Career Researchers (ECR). We are grateful for the support of many ECR organisations, including the European Council of Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers (Eurodoc), the Global Young Academy (GYA), the Marie Curie Alumni Association (MCAA) and the Young Academy of Europe (YAE). These organisations are closely collaborating with cOAlition S in order to further shape Plan S, to monitor its implementation, and to evaluate potential effects for the next generation of researchers….”

Gold Open Access, Organizational and Discipline-Specific Barriers to its Adoption and Business Model Viability | Open Research Community

“Thus, transformative Gold Open Access agreements do not necessarily produce win-win results for publishers and universities, since they likely demand capital investment, protracted inter-organizational negotiations, and expertise-related costs. This indicates the likely continued importance of Green and hybrid Open Access for the scholarly publishing market and a significant role for innovative business models in this sector.”

We have no time to waste in the transition to Open Access

“I understand why you say that, but I don’t think that is necessarily the case. cOAlition S has been faulted for focusing primarily on an accelerated transition towards Open Access by legacy publishers and existing journals. But let us not forget that these existing journals are where the grantholders of the cOAlition S funders want to publish. One the one hand, we ask of our researchers that they keep copyright and publish in CC-By. But in return we feel that we have to make sure that they can keep publishing in the journals that they know and love. So that means we decided to focus on creating incentives for the transformation of these journals into Open Access journals, steering them away from the hybrid impasse….

Publishers who wish to stick with subscription journals will have to give their authors the right to keep copyright and to publish in CC-BY, and additionally allow them to immediately deposit a copy of the AAM or the VoR in a Green repository. Note that publishers such as Sage and Emerald already allow authors to deposit their articles in a repository without embargo…..”

The Institution of Engineering and Technology and Wiley Announce Open Access Publishing Partnership

“ohn Wiley & Sons Inc. (NYSE: JW-A) (NYSE: JW-B), a global leader in research and education, and the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) today announced their open access (OA) publishing partnership, transitioning the IET journal program to gold open access from January 2021.

Under the terms of the publishing agreement, the IET will transition its entire hybrid subscription journals portfolio to a gold OA model, joining its existing gold open access journals, to create a leading collection of engineering and technology open access journals. This development will be enabled through a new publishing partnership with Wiley, who have a strong track record in society partnerships, and are leading the way in the transition to open access. The IET is working with its existing stakeholders to make this transition….”

The Institution of Engineering and Technology and Wiley Announce Open Access Publishing Partnership

“ohn Wiley & Sons Inc. (NYSE: JW-A) (NYSE: JW-B), a global leader in research and education, and the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) today announced their open access (OA) publishing partnership, transitioning the IET journal program to gold open access from January 2021.

Under the terms of the publishing agreement, the IET will transition its entire hybrid subscription journals portfolio to a gold OA model, joining its existing gold open access journals, to create a leading collection of engineering and technology open access journals. This development will be enabled through a new publishing partnership with Wiley, who have a strong track record in society partnerships, and are leading the way in the transition to open access. The IET is working with its existing stakeholders to make this transition….”

The growth of open access publishing in geochemistry – ScienceDirect

“Highlights

 

• 40% of articles in 2018-2019 published as Gold Open Access (OA).
• 70% in fully OA journals with a mean Article Processing Charge (APC) of US$ 900.
• 30% in historical hybrid journals with higher APC of more than $US 1,800.
• Correlation between number of OA articles in hybrids journals and impact factor.
• Relationship between number of OA articles in fully OA journals and APC….”