Report and Toolkit to Support Learned Society Publishers Transition to Immediate Open Access | Plan S

“cOAlition S aims to work with publishers, societies, consortia, and other stakeholders to accelerate the transition to Open Access. One of the current priorities is to develop clearer approaches to transformative arrangements towards full and immediate Open Access. Today an independent report and toolkit are launched to do just this.

This work was commissioned by Wellcome and UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) – two UK members of cOAlition S – in partnership with the Association of Learned & Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP). Information Power were appointed to lead the project.

The resulting report and toolkit are designed to help support learned society publishers to accelerate their transition to Open Access, and enter into transformative agreements that unlock a multi-year transitional pathway compliant with Plan S for hybrid Open Access titles. All outputs are available under a CC-BY licence at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4561397 …”

Transformation: the future of society publishing | Zenodo

Abstract:  The release in September 2018 of Plan S has led many small and society publishers to examine their business models, and in particular ways to transform their journals from hybrids into pure Open Access (OA) titles. This paper explores one means by which a society publisher might transform, focused specifically on the institutional set-price Publish & Read package being developed by the Microbiology Society based on assessments of: the geographic diversity of our author and subscriber bases; trends in article numbers, article costs and revenues; the administrative complexity of the options; and the reputational and financial risks to the Society associated with the package. We outline the process we followed to calculate the financial and publishing implications of Publish & Read at different price points, and share our view that these kinds of packages are a stop on the way to new models of OA that do not rely on Article Processing Charges (APCs). Our hope is that in sharing our experience, we will contribute to a collective best practice about how to transform society publishing.The release in September 2018 of Plan S has led many small and society publishers to examine their business models, and in particular ways to transform their journals from hybrids into pure Open Access (OA) titles. This paper explores one means by which a society publisher might transform, focused specifically on the institutional set-price Publish & Read package being developed by the Microbiology Society based on assessments of: the geographic diversity of our author and subscriber bases; trends in article numbers, article costs and revenues; the administrative complexity of the options; and the reputational and financial risks to the Society associated with the package. We outline the process we followed to calculate the financial and publishing implications of Publish & Read at different price points, and share our view that these kinds of packages are a stop on the way to new models of OA that do not rely on Article Processing Charges (APCs). Our hope is that in sharing our experience, we will contribute to a collective best practice about how to transform society publishing.

 

Financing open-access publication after 2024

“Several publishers are concerned about the timeline for implementing Plan S, the European initiative that will make all research papers free to access (see Nature 561, 17–18; 2018). Their main concern is whether their markets will be ready for a ‘pay to publish’ model by 2024, when funders’ support for transformative agreements ends. As co-chairs of the implementation task force of the international research-funder consortium cOAlition S (see www.coalition-s.org), we wish to clarify our position with regard to financially supporting the important transition to full open access after 2024….

After 2024, we will be encouraging institutional libraries and large consortia to switch from ‘read and publish’ agreements with publishers to ‘pure publish’ deals for portfolios of subscription journals that have become open-access journals. The cOAlition S funders will contribute to financing such deals, which will be more cost-effective and have fewer transaction costs than a single-paper charging system. The financial transaction would then no longer be between the author and the editor or journal, removing any concerns about perverse incentives for lax quality control….”

Disrupting medical publishing and the future of medical journals: a personal view – Gee – 2019 – Medical Journal of Australia – Wiley Online Library

“We strongly support the principle that research must be freely accessible. At the MJA [Medical Journal of Australia], we practise what we believe and make all research freely accessible from publication, a unique feature of a subscription journal. We further support the idea that subscription journals should ensure all peer?reviewed articles are freely accessible after an embargo period and suggest this period be set at no more than 24 months after final publication. We suggest that Plan S is off track in its opposition to hybrid journals. There are many metrics of quality and impact, including media (and social media) attention, but the primary currency by which research quality is judged remains citations by peers; major breakthroughs attract very high citations as the work is replicated then adapted and extended by others around the world, which is in reality how science advances and research is translated. Several of the journals with the greatest impact and highest citations will be excluded under Plan S if they maintain their current subscription models.

When it all boils down to basics, researchers want to have their research published quickly after peer and editorial review, with near perfect certainty in the most prestigious, most impactful place possible. In 2019, authors do not necessarily need a traditional subscription medical journal to achieve this goal, and if this spells the end of the subscription model, time will tell as the market decides. In the meantime and whatever our personal views, researchers will continue to seek to have their work widely read and cited, which is why the top medical journals (many of which remain subscription journals) will continue to attract the best research and will have a wide choice of what to accept….”

Springer Open: ceased, now hybrid, OA identification challenges | Sustaining the Knowledge Commons / Soutenir les savoirs communs

“SpringerNature, owner of Nature Publishing Group, Springer Open, and BioMedCentral, is the world’s largest fully open access journal publisher as measured by number of journals. The purpose of this post is to underscore what appears to be a significant open access attrition rate at SpringerOpen (16% OA attrition in the past few years) and raise questions about challenges to finding and identifying these journals as open access. Ceased journals that were always open access are listed on the SpringerLink (mostly subscriptions) site, not the SpringerOpen website. Subscriptions articles are clearly marked as such; the OA status of an article is not stated on the journal home page. Information provided by a library about License Terms may not mention or resemble a CC license….”

University of California Battles With Global Publisher Elsevier Over Access To Research – capradio.org

“The UC does a lot of both. It publishes roughly 10 percent of all research in the United States, and on average downloaded a study every three seconds last year. 

To continue at that pace under a new contract that would allow for open-access, the UC would continue to pay $11 million for access to research articles, plus an additional $15 million in publishing fees for the roughly 5,000 articles it makes available through Elsevier annually. 

Those combined fees would more than double the previous contract price. Negotiations brought that down a bit, but still pushed the price tag up by 80 percent, which was unacceptable to the system’s negotiators.

“[It’s] double dipping,” said Jeff MacKie-Mason, UC Berkeley’s librarian and the co-chairperson of the Elsevier negotiation team. “They charge the libraries reading fees, and then they charge the authors publishing fees on top of that if they want their articles open-access.”

Hersh says the company is supportive of open-access, but characterized the UC’s demands as wanting “two services for the price of one service.”

“I can be absolutely crystal clear here that Elsevier does not double-dip,” Hersh said….”

Guest Post: Plan S and Humanities Publishing – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Today’s post is by Jasmin Lange. Jasmin holds a PhD in book history and master’s degree in business management. Before joining Brill, she worked for Ernst Klett in Germany, Blackwell’s in the UK and for an international academic network based at the University of Edinburgh. After moving to Brill in 2011, she specialized in mergers & acquisitions, new business models, licensing, and open access. In January 2018, she was appointed Chief Publishing Officer and a member of Brill’s Executive Committee….”

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….”

Access agreement between Elsevier and Dutch universities extended

The Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) and Elsevier have announced a further 6-month extension to their current agreement, providing researchers at Dutch universities with access to more than 16 million publications from over 2,500 journals published by Elsevier, including  Cell Press and The Lancet titles, and journals published on behalf of its society partners.

The agreement includes an extension of the Elsevier-VSNU gold OA pilot, enabling researchers at Dutch universities to publish open access in the majority of Elsevier’s hybrid and gold OA journals in support of the Netherland’s open access goals.

The extension, which runs from July 1 through Dec 31, 2019, will allow for continued explorations between Elsevier, VSNU, the Netherlands Federation of University Medical Centres (NFU) and NWO on how to work together on aspired future Dutch open science infrastructure services….”

Plan S: the final cut—response from cOAlition S – The Lancet

On behalf of the cOAlition S Executive Steering Group, I commend the Editors of The Lancet for their positive support for Plan S and the ambition to make full and immediate open access a reality. Finding ways in which researchers can seek to publish in their preferred journals, while ensuring that the outputs of funded research can be accessed and used by all, is a key part of our strategy.

It was especially pleasing to read that the Lancet group’s hybrid journals will be fully compliant with Plan S.
As the payment of article processing charges in hybrid journals will no longer be supported by Plan S funders, we welcome the stance the Lancet family of journals have adopted: researchers who have articles accepted for publication in these venues can self-archive the Author-Accepted Manuscript (at no cost) in a repository where it can be made publicly available at the time of publication (no embargo) under a CC BY Open Access license.
This approach is in line with that of other publishers such as the Royal Society and the Microbiology Society, and we look forward to other publishers moving to a fully open access model….”