Elsevier and Japan Alliance of University Library Consortia for E-Resources agree on proposal for subscription framework with measures to support Open Access goals

The Japan Alliance of University Library Consortia for E-Resources (JUSTICE) and Elsevier, a global leader in research publishing and information analytics, have successfully reached agreement on a new three-year proposal for subscription publishing with measures to support Japan’s open access (OA) goals, beginning January 1, 2021.

Unboxing the Journal Checker Tool | Plan S

“We are delighted that the cOAlition S funded Journal Checker Tool (JCT) is released today. Although it is in open testing mode, this is a big milestone for us: we’re releasing the tool now to give you, the Plan S community, an opportunity to road test it. 

The JCT is designed to support all researchers funded by a cOAlition S member in finding Plan S compliant “routes” through which to publish their research articles open access. …

The Journal Checker Tool (JCT) allows a researcher to enter the name of their funder, the institution they are affiliated with, and the journal to which they plan to submit an article. The tool then checks if this combination of funder, institution, and journal offers any route to compliance with Plan S. It simultaneously checks 4 options:

 

whether the journal is fully open access, in line with Plan S, 
whether it is included within a transformative agreement subscribed to by that particular institution, 
whether it is a transformative journal; or 
whether self-archiving is an available option, either via the publishers self-archiving policy or via the cOAlition S Rights Retention Strategy (RRS).  …

Where there are multiple routes to compliance available, it is for the researcher to choose which route to proceed by, although the JCT does visualise cOAlition S’s preference for routes that enable the Version of Record to be made open access….

The data used in the JCT calculation is large and distributed across the global network. The JCT relies upon data from the Directory of Open Access Journals, Shareyourpaper.org Permissions, the ESAC Transformative Agreement Registry, Crossref and the Research Organization Registry Community (ROR)

…”

Is academic publishing about to change? – National Union of Journalists

“But despite their previous reliance on the subscription model, recent times have seen major publishers declaring that an open access future is inevitable (as long as it is brought about on their terms).

In May 2019, for instance, Springer Nature’s Chief Publishing Officer, Stephen Inchcoombe, declared that the publisher wanted “to find the fastest and most effective route to immediate open access (OA) for all primary research”. Similarly, last year Wiley announced that, to continue their mission to “empower researchers to communicate the amazing work they do every day”, they are “fully supportive of the growing movement to make research more open”.

The trouble with arguments made about business practices through moral terms, as much OA advocacy has done, is that it is vulnerable to having its language captured by Senior Executives and dissolved into platitudes. These grand, broad statements of assent from publishers on where academic publishing should go conceal very real disagreements of where precisely it’s going and how it should get there….

These [transformative] deals become troublesome, however, when they are requested by (or imposed upon) those institutions that do a lot more reading, relatively speaking, than they do publishing, or vice versa….

In all the competing visions in what a fair and sustainable publishing industry should look like, the voice that is rarely heard is of those actually doing the publishing. The organisations speaking on behalf of the industry are trade bodies, not trade unions. ‘Plan S’ has of late generated an interminable proliferation of panel discussions and conference symposia, always with representatives of publishing organisations rather than of publishing staff….

The skills required of those working to produce academic journals are considerable and ever-changing. Some of the arguments commonly heard against the publishing business – that publishers add little or no value, that it is ‘just putting a PDF online’ – denigrate the work and expertise of publishing professionals. A higher profit margin means work is less well paid for, not that less work is being done….

The NUJ [National Union of Journalists] has been campaigning on open access and its effects on publishing work for nearly a decade. With many members in academic publishing, particularly in Springer Nature and Taylor and Francis, the NUJ has also been working for equal pay, action on workload-related stress and greater diversity in the industry, all as part of a fundamental emphasis on the value of the work that publishing professionals do….”

Is academic publishing about to change? – National Union of Journalists

“But despite their previous reliance on the subscription model, recent times have seen major publishers declaring that an open access future is inevitable (as long as it is brought about on their terms).

In May 2019, for instance, Springer Nature’s Chief Publishing Officer, Stephen Inchcoombe, declared that the publisher wanted “to find the fastest and most effective route to immediate open access (OA) for all primary research”. Similarly, last year Wiley announced that, to continue their mission to “empower researchers to communicate the amazing work they do every day”, they are “fully supportive of the growing movement to make research more open”.

The trouble with arguments made about business practices through moral terms, as much OA advocacy has done, is that it is vulnerable to having its language captured by Senior Executives and dissolved into platitudes. These grand, broad statements of assent from publishers on where academic publishing should go conceal very real disagreements of where precisely it’s going and how it should get there….

These [transformative] deals become troublesome, however, when they are requested by (or imposed upon) those institutions that do a lot more reading, relatively speaking, than they do publishing, or vice versa….

In all the competing visions in what a fair and sustainable publishing industry should look like, the voice that is rarely heard is of those actually doing the publishing. The organisations speaking on behalf of the industry are trade bodies, not trade unions. ‘Plan S’ has of late generated an interminable proliferation of panel discussions and conference symposia, always with representatives of publishing organisations rather than of publishing staff….

The skills required of those working to produce academic journals are considerable and ever-changing. Some of the arguments commonly heard against the publishing business – that publishers add little or no value, that it is ‘just putting a PDF online’ – denigrate the work and expertise of publishing professionals. A higher profit margin means work is less well paid for, not that less work is being done….

The NUJ [National Union of Journalists] has been campaigning on open access and its effects on publishing work for nearly a decade. With many members in academic publishing, particularly in Springer Nature and Taylor and Francis, the NUJ has also been working for equal pay, action on workload-related stress and greater diversity in the industry, all as part of a fundamental emphasis on the value of the work that publishing professionals do….”

ReadAndPublishAgreementsUnethical – Google Docs

“The new ‘Read and Publish’ / ‘transformative’ agreements are just another version of hybrid because subscriptions are combined with APCs (Figures 1 and 2). They are also another version of a ‘Big Deal’ because universities are locked into a contract with a publisher that involves a bundle of journals at prices that are divorced from actual costs….”

ReadAndPublishAgreementsUnethical – Google Docs

“The new ‘Read and Publish’ / ‘transformative’ agreements are just another version of hybrid because subscriptions are combined with APCs (Figures 1 and 2). They are also another version of a ‘Big Deal’ because universities are locked into a contract with a publisher that involves a bundle of journals at prices that are divorced from actual costs….”

Christian Gutknecht on Twitter: “5 months after my FOI request, we finally know what the @unil and the @HEPVaud is paying for Elsevier. #openaccess @OpenScienceUNIL @freiedokumente @smetille https://t.co/J0TT18FTkj https://t.co/wZ9GmLexJb” / Twitter

From Google’s English:  “Your correspondence received on October 11, 2020 has captured our full attention. We have the pleasure to send you the requested information contained in the following document:

• Read & Publish pilot agreement between swissuniversities and Elsevier (“Elsevier

Subscription Agreement ”) for the years 2020-2023, page 12.

The amount that the BCU Lausanne will pay for the perimeter of the University of Lausanne (incl.

HEP Vaud) for the years 2020-2021-2022-2023 for this license amounts to:

2020: EUR 1’229’064.32

(excl. VAT)

2021: EUR 1’253’645.61

(excl. VAT)

2022: EUR 1’281’728.45

(excl. VAT)

2023: EUR 1’307’248.11

(excl. VAT)

 

We specify that the 2022 and 2023 prices are estimates because they are subject to correction in

according to the effective number of articles published by the University of Lausanne in 2020 and 2021.

Within the meaning of article 12 of the law of 24 September 2002 on information (Llnfo; BLV 170.21),

we are required to provide you with an answer within 15 days of the

receipt of your request. However, given the difficulty in obtaining validations

required, we inform you that we have rendered our decision upon receipt of the

written confirmations from the Data Protection and Right to Information Authority and

the Administrative and Public Law Court of the Cantonal Court that no appeal has been registered.

In compliance with article 11 Llnfo, we hereby confirm that no fee

you will not be asked for the work done to date following your request.”

ESAC Workflow Recommendations for Transformative Agreements – ESAC Initiative

“These recommendations were developed in 2017, at the 2nd ESAC Offsetting Workshop attended by libraries, funders and publishers from seven European countries, the United States and Japan. They have also been published in UKSG Insights. To learn more, please read also an article by colleagues at the Vienna University Library about workflows for open access agreements.”