DOAJ’s open letter to SSHA communities about Plan S – News Service

“The recently published Royal Historical Society (RHS) working paper on Plan Scontains some errors about the role that DOAJ might play in Plan S certification. These misunderstandings are commonplace and we, the DOAJ Management Team, have seen them before in other responses to Plan S. They are disappointing but they are not surprising….

The DOAJ Management Team recently decided that it is time to do a bit of “myth-busting“. Therefore we are publishing this open letter, partly as a response to the RHS paper, mostly as a way of addressing the misunderstandings that have been circulated on social media, but also as a call to SSHA communities to collaborate with us….

We felt it was important to respond to this particular statement because it illustrates that there is a great need to support social science, humanities and arts (SSHA) communities. DOAJ is keen to work more closely with SSHA communities and the organisations and bodies working with them to enable them to become fully familiar with the driving forces behind open access, in a way that the STEMM communities already are….

In 2015, DOAJ tightened its acceptance criteria and made all the 10 000+ indexed journals reapply to remain indexed. Many SSHA journals failed to submit a re-application to us, or didn’t meet enough of the criteria to remain indexed. It is not enough to expect these journals to simply come to us and apply. We must go to them and help them understand why being indexed in DOAJ is a good thing, but we cannot do it alone. With this post, we are putting out an open call to representative groups in the social sciences, humanities and arts to collaborate with us and help us to identify journals that are fit for purpose, and which should be indexed in DOAJ….

The RHS paper describes an understandable concern that Plan S disadvantages SSHA journals, many of which do not charge APCs. We were pleased to read this comment as this echoes exactly the concern which DOAJ presented to cOAlition S during the feedback period. The current draft of the Plan S requirements glosses over any journals, SSHA or otherwise, that do not charge APCs and these are the journals that DOAJ is trying to protect and promote….

Many commentators of Plan S have mentioned either that many journals in DOAJ are not Plan S compliant or that it is hard to identify Plan S compliant journals currently indexed in DOAJ. If cOAlition S confirms that DOAJ is a partner in Plan S implementation then the DOAJ Management Team will adapt DOAJ, both the website and the editorial processes, to allow journals to apply for Plan S compliance.

  • We will add a separate stream for those journals seeking Plan S compliance.
  • Being indexed in DOAJ will not equal Plan S compliance.
  • We will make it possible for journals to be indexed appropriately in DOAJ: Plan S compliant or DOAJ compliant or compliance for both.
  • We understand that many of the journals which eventually achieve Plan S compliance probably aren’t in DOAJ today.
  • We do expect that many of the journals in DOAJ today may not even want to apply for Plan S compliance.
  • We will work hard to make sure that Plan S compliant journals are quickly and easily identifiable by users….”

Is there a place for a Subscription Journal in an Open Access world?

“At the Annual Meeting of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) in San Diego later this month [30 May, 2 p.m.] I will assert that yes, a subscription journal can continue its subscription business-model while effectively accelerating the transition of their discipline to Open Access—but only in the right circumstances, and only if a publisher adopts what I call “Maximum Dissemination” of the authors’ work, including elimination of its paywall….

Accepting an author’s final accepted manuscript (post peer-review) is the ideal point at which the publisher could take on the mantle of providing maximum dissemination of the author’s work.

Imagine at that point that a publisher informs the author as follows:

 

  • Congratulations. Your article “xxxxx” has now passed peer-review and has been accepted for publication in the Journal of yyy.
  • Part of our commitment to you is that we will seek maximum dissemination of your work, both the published version that we will now be preparing and your Author’s Accepted Manuscript (post peer-review) for those who do not yet subscribe to the Journal of yyy.
  • Upon publication of our published version we will archive your accepted manuscript in an Open Repository that meets all the requirements of sustainable accessibility. If you have a preference for which Open Repository, you’d like it submitted to, please check the appropriate box(s) below:
  • {The author’s home institution Institutional Repository}
  • {An Open Repository used by many in this particular discipline.}
  • {A National Repository used by scholars in the scholar’s home country.}
  • {etc.}…”

The real issues ‘are being blurred’ | Research Information

“[Q] What do you see as the biggest challenges in scholarly publishing today?

[A] A mixture of cost, inaccessibility, and the academic reward mechanism which has grown up around particular modes of scholarly communication. Cost is being driven by two factors: the increasing amount of atomised research that researchers are publishing with subscription journals; and the continued above inflation price increases, particularly amongst some of the very largest publishers.

The challenge of inaccessibility is a very significant one. There is no one established model for open access, there’s still a lot of innovation going on and there are a number of models emerging. We haven’t yet found a mechanism for supporting the learned society journals in particular, who therefore become conflicted because on one hand they are benefiting from some of the monopolistic behaviours around copyright transfer, but on the other hand are using the funds that are generated as part of the publishing business to support their learned society activities. If you end up in a pay-to-publish open access world, that immediately disenfranchises the very people who can’t access the current content in the first place.

The academic reward mechanisms, whereby you have journal title as a proxy of quality, means publishing in high-impact journals is actively rewarded and encouraged and used as a short cut to determine career paths and promotion. There’s a perverse incentive to go after being published in certain places, rather than in making the outputs of publicly funded research available to a much broader community….”

Revisiting – Navigating the Big Deal: A Guide for Societies – The Scholarly Kitchen

“In the wake of Plan S, many research society and independent publishers are exploring potential partnerships with larger publishing houses. While Plan S is the catalyst for this activity, it’s part of a longer term trend in the market toward scale as the key advantage leading to success. The benefit for a smaller publisher in such an arrangement is that they gain access to that scale, along with the resources that come with it. The negatives include losing some levels of control over one’s publication program. In particular, as the Big Deal has evolved, it has changed the way these partnerships can work. Because so much effort is currently going into expanding the Big Deal into The Bigger Deal (adding in open access author fees on top of subscription access), I thought it was a good time to revisit Michael Clarke’s post from last year that talked about understanding the current state of the Big Deal and the careful planning one needs to do in order to put together a successful publishing partnership….”

Revisiting – Navigating the Big Deal: A Guide for Societies – The Scholarly Kitchen

“In the wake of Plan S, many research society and independent publishers are exploring potential partnerships with larger publishing houses. While Plan S is the catalyst for this activity, it’s part of a longer term trend in the market toward scale as the key advantage leading to success. The benefit for a smaller publisher in such an arrangement is that they gain access to that scale, along with the resources that come with it. The negatives include losing some levels of control over one’s publication program. In particular, as the Big Deal has evolved, it has changed the way these partnerships can work. Because so much effort is currently going into expanding the Big Deal into The Bigger Deal (adding in open access author fees on top of subscription access), I thought it was a good time to revisit Michael Clarke’s post from last year that talked about understanding the current state of the Big Deal and the careful planning one needs to do in order to put together a successful publishing partnership….”

Deal or No Deal | Periodicals Price Survey 2019

“Pressure increases on publishers to move more quickly to open access, but this leaves many questions unanswered

For the past decade, libraries have battled declining university budgets and increasing serials expenditures. With each Big Deal package renewal or cancellation, librarians and publishers have asked themselves: Did I make the best deal? Did I make the right deal? Recent developments in open access (OA) promise to bring major reform to academic publishing and, with that, new challenges and opportunities to the way that librarians and publishers choose to deal….”

American Chemical Society and Max Planck institutes partner on transformative open access plan – American Chemical Society

The Publications Division of the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG) announced today a collaborative open access strategic partnership that will advance shared goals for open science and enhance convenience for the MPG researcher and author community. Effective from the outset of 2019, the four-year transformative agreement provides researchers affiliated with Max Planck institutes the opportunity to disseminate immediately, under an open access license, 100 percent of their research articles upon acceptance and publication by a peer-reviewed ACS journal. MPG researchers also benefit from full reader access to all ACS Publications journals and Chemical & Engineering News….”

American Chemical Society and Max Planck institutes partner on transformative open access plan – American Chemical Society

The Publications Division of the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the Max Planck Gesellschaft (MPG) announced today a collaborative open access strategic partnership that will advance shared goals for open science and enhance convenience for the MPG researcher and author community. Effective from the outset of 2019, the four-year transformative agreement provides researchers affiliated with Max Planck institutes the opportunity to disseminate immediately, under an open access license, 100 percent of their research articles upon acceptance and publication by a peer-reviewed ACS journal. MPG researchers also benefit from full reader access to all ACS Publications journals and Chemical & Engineering News….”

Open access journal publishing in the Nordic countries

Abstract:  The number of open access (OA) journals and their share of all scholarly journals are usually estimated based on indexing in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). DOAJ’s coverage of OA journals from different regions of the world is, however, far from complete, particularly of journals publishing in languages other than English. Using alternative data sources for identification and manual verification, 437 scholarly OA journals published in the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) were identified, and some key characteristics were studied. Of these, only 184 were indexed in DOAJ. A vast majority of the journals was published by scholarly societies or universities. Social sciences and humanities dominated as topics, and few journals charge authors. National or university-specific OJS portals have played a major role in enabling OA publishing. Around a third of the Nordic scholarly journals are currently OA.

Will Plan S put learned societies in jeopardy? – Purton – 2019 – FEBS Letters – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  The controversial plan for scientific research publications to be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms is discussed. The article has been co?published with permission in European Heart Journal and British Journal of Pharmacology. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal’s style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.