Plan T: Scrap APCs and Fund Open Access with Submission Fees – The Scholarly Kitchen

“APCs have the unfortunate feature that the authors pay for the assessment of all the other submissions that ended up being rejected. Manuscripts rejected from multiple OA journals thus contribute to the APCs of several different authors. Is it fair for authors of good articles to pay for the peer review of others’ lower quality work? Moreover, journals that do lots of peer review to find one acceptable article have higher APCs, as illustrated by the figure below….

Breaking down an APC and how it relates to submission numbers and acceptance rates suggests another way to cover publication costs: a submission fee of $350 and a publication fee of $850 would generate the same revenue as the current APCs at these journals. (This approach has been suggested before, see herehere, and here.)…

The introduction of submission fees also affects submission patterns, most notably by steering away articles with only slim chances of acceptance. This effect would change the calculations in the figure above: fewer low quality articles arrive, so acceptance rates rise and hence reduce income from submission fees. However, a drop in submissions also means a drop in costs, as those weak articles no longer need to be processed through the system….

A drop in submissions is not fatal for the submission fee math – even a 30% fall can be accommodated by raising the submission fee to $500, or by raising the submission fee to $400 and the publication fee to $1100. Journals would adjust their submission fees within some reasonable range depending on their brand perception, current levels of submissions, and a desire to remain competitive with other journals in the field. Journals with high fees may even be able to signal the higher quality of their review and publishing process.

Submission fees have other useful properties. First, they are ‘pay as you go’ for peer review: they penalize authors who submit low quality articles over and over to different journals, and reward those who prepare their work to a high standard and submit it to the most appropriate outlet.

Similarly, submission fees counteract the perverse incentives created when authors receive financial rewards for publishing in high impact journals, which is a major driver for inappropriate submissions. If they had to pay each time, would as many authors take a wild stab at getting their incremental work published in a top journal, then working their way, journal by journal, down the Impact Factor rankings until they reach an appropriate level?

Submission fees also bring peer review into line with lots of other services that cost money regardless of whether you succeed or fail, such as professional exams or even dental check-ups. Viewed through this lens, the ‘no win, no fee’ approach of APCs seems like an anomaly….”

Should authors pay to submit their papers? · john hawks weblog

“An article by Tim Vines in The Scholarly Kitchen looks at the pay-to-submit model of open access publication: “Plan T: Scrap APCs and Fund Open Access with Submission Fees”….

The article is worth considering. Articles cost money to publish. If we insist upon journal publication, that money needs to come from somewhere. I would be happy if my university subsidized submission of papers to open-access journals instead of subscriptions to closed-access journals.

However, I tend to agree with Richard Sever, who tweeted a link to the article and commented:

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… “

Leiden manifesto for research Metrics – Home

“Research evaluation has become routine and often relies on metrics. But it is increasingly driven by data and not by expert judgement. As a result, the procedures that were designed to increase the quality of research are now threatening to damage the scientific system. To support researchers and managers, five experts led by Diana Hicks, professor in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology, and Paul Wouters, director of CWTS at Leiden University, have proposed 10 principles for the measurement of research performance: the Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics published as a comment in Nature….”

Open science and codes of conduct on research integrity | Informaatiotutkimus

Abstract:  The purpose of this article is to examine the conceptual alignment between the ethical principles of research integrity and open science. Research integrity is represented in this study by four general codes of conduct on responsible conduct of research (RCR), three of them international in scope, and one national. A representative list of ethical principles associated with open science is compiled in order to create categories for assessing the content of the codes. According to the analysis, the current understanding of RCR is too focused on traditional publications and the so called FFP definition of research misconduct to fully support open science. The main gaps include recognising citizen science and societal outreach and supporting open collaboration both among the research community and beyond its traditional borders. Updates for both the content of CoCs as well as the processes of creating such guidelines are suggested.

How to reach a wider audience with open access publishing: what research universities can learn from universities of applied sciences

Abstract:  In Amsterdam, the libraries of the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS) cooperate closely. In this cooperation, the differences between a research university (i.c. UvA) and a university of applied sciences (i.c. AUAS) become particularly clear when we look at the aim and implementation of open access policies. The open access plan of the AUAS removes not only financial and legal barriers, but also language barriers. This makes the research output FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) to the primary target group of the product, and more importantly, it enables interaction between the AUAS and a wide audience, consisting of researchers from other disciplines, and a wide range of professionals, enterprises, civil servants, schools and citizens. In the search for co-financing by enterprises and other stakeholders, and to fulfil their valorisation requirements, these target groups are currently becoming more important for research universities as well. Here, we show what research universities can learn from the open access policy of the AUAS.

FINAL REPORT: A Grand Challenges-Based Research Agenda for Scholarly Communication and Information Science

“A global and multidisciplinary community of stakeholders came together in March 2018 to identify, scope, and prioritize a common vision for specific grand research challenges related to the fields of information science and scholarly communications. The participants included domain researchers in academia, practitioners, and those who are aiming to democratize scholarship. An explicit goal of the summit was to identify research needs related to barriers in the development of scalable, interoperable, socially beneficial, and equitable systems for scholarly information; and to explore the development of non-market approaches to governing the scholarly knowledge ecosystem.

To spur discussion and exploration, grand challenge provocations were suggested by participants and framed into one of three sections: scholarly discovery, digital curation and preservation, and open scholarship. A few people participated in three segments, but most only attended discussions around a single topic….”

En Plan S+ til bekjempelse av eliteforskeres logofetisjisme

From Google’s English: “Another alleged side effect of Plan S is that it will be harder to recruit international top researchers to research projects in Norway. Ambitious researchers will always strive for the stars. And high up there are flashing old prestigious journals that it will now be illegal to “publish.” This unrest will apparently make it impossible to assemble highly skilled research teams in northern Norway. But ahead of Plan S, leading universities are in the home country of freedom, the United States. Among others, Harvard and MIT have for many years demanded their researchers to publish in ways that promote Open Access. Has this had negative effects on recruitment, and in the case of which? The burden of proof lies with the skeptics of Plan S.


In my position as a university librarian, I conduct both research and library work. I travel at a conference, I do not take the limousine to the airport, there will be bus or to emergency taxi. I never fly first class, and there are limits to how expensive accommodation I can book. Perhaps I had more admiring glances along the way if I ordered a limousine with a private driver. But it would be hard to expect that the employer should pay for it.

To submit Articles for expensive subscription magazines are not contributing to a good public-private partnership. We already have a system called CRISTIN, where all researchers should register their publications. This is how we build our resume, so we show our contribution to the development of knowledge. If the government wishes to speed up the transition to Open Access, it should launch a Plan S +. Now as the Research Council is doing, universities and colleges can also get the following control signal: Make sure researchers who publish in subscription-based journals are deducted 10,000 kr in free operating assets (annuity) per publication score. Researchers who publish in open channels with good quality assurance receive $ 10,000 in advance. That way, those who are passionate about prestige pay for the limousine tours themselves. Progressive colleagues who choose to drive bus and taxi….”

Community Cultivation: A Field Guide

“Innovators abound in the fields of libraries, archives, museums, publishing, and higher education. Many of these idea generators find ample support for the creation of tools and technologies that enable new forms of knowledge production, dissemination, or preservation as those tools are first imagined and piloted.

However, when these innovators attempt to sustain their creations, external funding and attention often wane. A well-documented “Valley of Death” stretches between softfunded projects and sustainable programs. Without deep knowledge of how to build a support community, and how to manage such elements as resources, communications, engagement, and governance, innovators find the bridge between grant funding and ongoing operations very difficult to cross….

Many potential tools and services wither, not due to shortfalls in demand or shortcomings in those products, but rather to a lack of attention to organization and community building….

We [at Educopia] are now openly sharing the model that we have developed and refined over the last twelve years. Community Cultivation – A Field Guide provides a powerful lens that can provide both emerging and established communities with ways to understand, evaluate, and plan their own growth, change, and maturation. We are offering this Field Guide freely in the hope that it will empower more community facilitators and leaders to invest in the health and sustainability of their own collaborative networks….”

Draft ACRL Scholarly Communications Research Agenda Feedback Due Jan 4 – ACRL Insider

Rebecca Kennison and Nancy Maron, selected by ACRL to design, develop, and deliver a new research agenda for scholarly communications and the research environment, have been hard at work since March 2018 with guidance and input from ACRL’s Research and Scholarly Environment Committee (ReSEC). ACRL is now seeking public comment on a draft document by COB Friday, January 4, 2019….

By sharing this draft publicly for feedback, ACRL seeks to continue the robust community engagement, which has included input from over 1,000 individuals via expert interviews, online focus groups, a survey, and large group conversations at major conferences. ACRL wants the final document to be as helpful as possible both in guiding academic librarians on actions that can be taken now to promote a more open system of scholarship and identifying essential areas that merit further investigation….”