Plan S, self?publishing, and addressing unreasonable risks of society publishing – Vuong – 2020 – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

“Key points

 

Societies face increasing pressure to contain costs and retain revenues, which are threatened by open access mandates.
Funders and other science publishing campaigns need to recognize the value of learned societies and work with them to sustain the production of quality knowledge.
Self?publishing via preprint servers may threaten the quality of academic research.
Societies can reinforce their value proposition through a model of academic entrepreneurship, including research activities, media engagement, and consultancy….”

How India’s new Intermediary Liability Rules could limit everyone’s access to information online

“The birth of the World Wide Web thirty years ago brought with it the promise of a global meeting ground for open knowledge, innovation and connection that no one had previously experienced. While society has made tremendous progress, giving voice to millions and making knowledge available in places far and wide, we have also grappled with challenges — from misinformation to the spread of harmful content — that have compromised these goals. These challenges have led to growing scrutiny of the internet’s visitors and purveyors, including restrictions designed to regulate the flow and exchange of online information. While the intent that drives these moves may be valid, the unintended consequences from unilateral, closed-door actions by governments could have dire consequences on an open internet.

New changes to India’s intermediary liability rules — the rules that govern how websites with users in India host content on their platforms — which are currently being considered by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, highlight these risks….”

OPEN ACCESS – Subscription journals braced for open access

“An ESHRE [European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology] expert meeting in November reviewed what we know so far about open access publishing for medical journals. The meeting in particular explored where we now are with Plan S and how its implementation might affect the Human Reproduction journals….”

OPEN ACCESS – Subscription journals braced for open access

“An ESHRE [European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology] expert meeting in November reviewed what we know so far about open access publishing for medical journals. The meeting in particular explored where we now are with Plan S and how its implementation might affect the Human Reproduction journals….”

Leaked Dutch Contract with Elsevier Raises Significant Alarm Bells – SPARC

“In recent weeks it has emerged that Elsevier is negotiating a new deal with VSNU, a consortia of Dutch Universities. According to press reports on leaked details of the deal, Elsevier is discussing a contract to provide Dutch universities with access to its journals at no extra cost (a major concession after decades of significant annual increases for most of their customers). However, the deal comes with significant new strings: Elsevier will essentially accept a “zero revenue growth” position for its journal in exchange for the universities purchasing a large set of their data analytics products. While the exact details of the deal are unconfirmed (and Elsevier has indicated that there are several inaccuracies in the leak), we have no reason to believe that the main storyline is incorrect.

There are many reasons why signing a deal like this would represent a very insidious precedent for the academic community. …”

Why are Librarians Concerned about GetFTR?  – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Twitter was abuzz this past week with the announcement of Get Full Text Research (GetFTR) at the STM association meeting in London. GetFTR attempts to reduce friction between discovery and access through a new kind of linking data service, and Roger Schonfeld’s same day analysis here in The Scholarly Kitchen provided some information from a publisher perspective. 

Developed by a group of five of the largest publishers, and built on top of RA21’s Seamless Access service, GetFTR was very effectively kept under wraps until the formal announcement — so much so that the staff of NISO, a lead partner in Seamless Access, was completely unaware of the project. 

GetFTR offers clear benefits for publishers and researchers. A direct link to a copy with known access entitlements is very useful. But, it seems some were taken aback by the less than warm welcome the announcement received from the library community.

Today, I wish to articulate why many librarians are concerned about GetFTR. …

GetFTR builds on the foundation of Seamless Access, an initiative that troubles the library community. The predecessor project, RA21, raised many concerns related to control over and privacy of user data and the future of publisher support for proxy and IP based authentication, access pathways that are valued and broadly implemented in academic libraries. The follow-on organization to the RA21 project, Seamless Access, seems to be unable to find a library organization partner to join the leadership team in spite of making a number of overtures, and the group has chosen to move forward with implementation without that engagement. By connecting itself to Seamless Access, GetFTR is “inheriting” a number of the library critiques of Seamless Access….”

 

The Tyranny of Unintended Consequences: Richard Poynder on Open Access and the Open Access Movement – The Scholarly Kitchen

“As I understand it, Poynder is making two fundamental points in his analysis, each of which is summed up conveniently in a sentence that can be quoted directly:

First:

We have re-discovered the truth that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Providing free content and services inevitably requires some form of revenue from somewhere.

Poynder’s second fundamental point is the one on which he spends the bulk of his time, and it is also by far the more controversial:

We have learned that openness is by no means an unmitigated good….

The Tyranny of Unintended Consequences: Richard Poynder on Open Access and the Open Access Movement – The Scholarly Kitchen

“As I understand it, Poynder is making two fundamental points in his analysis, each of which is summed up conveniently in a sentence that can be quoted directly:

First:

We have re-discovered the truth that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Providing free content and services inevitably requires some form of revenue from somewhere.

Poynder’s second fundamental point is the one on which he spends the bulk of his time, and it is also by far the more controversial:

We have learned that openness is by no means an unmitigated good….

The Open Letter: Reaction of Researchers to Plan S: too far, too risky. A response of the Fair Open Access Alliance

[Undated]

“We write to provide a counter view to the recent open letter (“Plan S: Too Far, Too Risky”),1 partly based on our FOAA recommendations for the implementation of Plan S.2 We are glad to note that the researchers who have signed the open letter support open access as their very first principle. However, the letter itself goes on to make a number of highly problematic and logically fallacious statements with which we strongly disagree and here contest….”

The Open Letter: Reaction of Researchers to Plan S: too far, too risky. A response of the Fair Open Access Alliance

[Undated]

“We write to provide a counter view to the recent open letter (“Plan S: Too Far, Too Risky”),1 partly based on our FOAA recommendations for the implementation of Plan S.2 We are glad to note that the researchers who have signed the open letter support open access as their very first principle. However, the letter itself goes on to make a number of highly problematic and logically fallacious statements with which we strongly disagree and here contest….”