Pengene bak vitenskapelig publisering | Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening

From Google’s English:  “Most doctors relate to the pharmaceutical industry with a healthy skepticism. Scientific publications are also something all doctors and researchers have to deal with every single day, but knowledge of and skepticism of the scientific publishing industry seems to be less. The topic has become more relevant, as everyday publication has changed radically in recent decades. The Research Council of Norway has also, like 14 other countries, approved Plan S. This means that research funded by funds from the Research Council announced after 2021 must be published in open scientific journals (open access) ( 1 – 3). How does this change scientific publishing, and what will the industry itself have to change? The purpose of this article is to draw attention to existing problems with scientific publication and new problems created with open access and Plan S….

The most important thing we as users of the system can do is to be aware of the actual conditions and meet the publishing houses, journals and scientific publications we read with a healthy skepticism. With increased attention, the professional communities can put pressure on the industry and the authorities. This has already led to changes in Plan S….”

Pengene bak vitenskapelig publisering | Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening

From Google’s English:  “Most doctors relate to the pharmaceutical industry with a healthy skepticism. Scientific publications are also something all doctors and researchers have to deal with every single day, but knowledge of and skepticism of the scientific publishing industry seems to be less. The topic has become more relevant, as everyday publication has changed radically in recent decades. The Research Council of Norway has also, like 14 other countries, approved Plan S. This means that research funded by funds from the Research Council announced after 2021 must be published in open scientific journals (open access) ( 1 – 3). How does this change scientific publishing, and what will the industry itself have to change? The purpose of this article is to draw attention to existing problems with scientific publication and new problems created with open access and Plan S….

The most important thing we as users of the system can do is to be aware of the actual conditions and meet the publishing houses, journals and scientific publications we read with a healthy skepticism. With increased attention, the professional communities can put pressure on the industry and the authorities. This has already led to changes in Plan S….”

ERC argumenterte med behovene til unge forskere, nå får de svar på tiltale

“In a recent letter, which Khrono has with a copy, four organizations that organize researchers early in their careers plead with the European Commission to ensure full implementation of Plan S, despite the ERC withdrawing from the coalition. They point to the EU’s forthcoming research program Horizon Europe. The letter is addressed to EU Research Commissioner Mariya Gabriel and Director-General for Research Jean-Eric Paquet.

The letter from the Young Academy of Europe (YAE), the Marie Curie Alumni Association (MCAA), the European Council for Doctoral Candidates and Junior Researchers (Eurodoc) and the Global Young Academy (GYA) is written in support of Plan S and open publication of research.

The need for open access to research has been “confirmed by the Covid-19 pandemic”, they argue….”

Det europeiske forskingsrådet (ERC) trekker støtte til Plan S

“The ERC, together with funders of research throughout Europe, has been behind the demand for open publication of research which is laid down in the so-called Plan S.

Now the collaboration is abruptly over.

In recent months, the ERC’s Scientific Council has “intensified the internal debate and reached a unanimous decision”, the press release states, and the result is that they will end their cooperation with Coalition S and work on the introduction of Plan S.

The Norwegian climate researcher Eystein Jansen, who is a professor at the University of Bergen, is a member of the Scientific Medical Council and has been involved in the unanimous decision. He tells Khrono that the decision has been made after thorough assessments….

Director of the Research Council, John-Arne Røttingen, is one of the leading figures in the international work on Plan S.

– The decision in the ERC comes as a big surprise, and the timing is strange, says Røttingen.

– When we established Plan S, we got the Scientific Council of the ERC on the team, and they played an important role in shaping the plan and the implementation plan.

He assures that the decision in the ERC will not affect the changes in financing terms that are planned to be introduced from 1.1. 2021. Since the EU Commission is allocating the money to the ERC’s budget, Røttingen believes that the ERC’s change of course will not put a stop to the plans for open publication as set out in Plan S.

– It is the EU Commission that set the framework for all project funding that is provided. The commission has wholeheartedly assured that they support Plan S and the implementation plan, says Røttingen….”

Meiner forskarar må ha rett til å «klippe og lime» frå publiserte artiklar

From Google’s English:  “As I envision the future, the research articles are to a greater extent hypertext with the integration of data, cross-links, codes and in my case sound and images. You can call it a multimedia article, which in many cases can be the basis for other research, says Jensenius, who is a music researcher….”

Forskarar som får støtte kan ikkje lenger gi bort opphavsrett

“Publishing research is a billion-dollar industry with a number of powerful publishers in the driver’s seat, and it is common for researchers to give away the rights to their research articles to journals, which in turn publish behind high payment walls. There will be a final end to this, if it goes as the partners behind the so-called Plan S – Coalition S – want: …

On Wednesday, Coalition S launches the requirement that all researchers funded by research councils in countries that are part of the so-called Plan S must commit themselves to retaining the rights to peer-reviewed research articles.

 

In Norway, this means in practice that everyone, without exception, who receives public money from the Research Council is no longer allowed to relinquish the copyright to published scientific articles. The requirement shall apply to all announcements after 1 January 2021 (non-retroactive effect)….”

Forskarar som får støtte kan ikkje lenger gi bort opphavsrett

“Publishing research is a billion-dollar industry with a number of powerful publishers in the driver’s seat, and it is common for researchers to give away the rights to their research articles to journals, which in turn publish behind high payment walls. There will be a final end to this, if it goes as the partners behind the so-called Plan S – Coalition S – want: …

On Wednesday, Coalition S launches the requirement that all researchers funded by research councils in countries that are part of the so-called Plan S must commit themselves to retaining the rights to peer-reviewed research articles.

 

In Norway, this means in practice that everyone, without exception, who receives public money from the Research Council is no longer allowed to relinquish the copyright to published scientific articles. The requirement shall apply to all announcements after 1 January 2021 (non-retroactive effect)….”

Norske forskningsinstitusjoner har besluttet å ikke forlenge avtale med forlaget Elsevier | Unit

From Google’s English: “The offer from Elsevier is far from fulfilling the requirements of Norway for open access to research articles. Nor is there any movement in the agreement’s period against paying for publishing instead of paying for reading access. The agreement with Elsevier is therefore not renewed for 2019. The Rectorates at BOTT (the universities in Bergen, Oslo, Tromsø and Trondheim) support the decision.

The Government’s goal is for all Norwegian scientific articles financed by public funds to be openly available by 2024. The main objective is to go from paying to read articles via subscription to paying for having articles that are openly available. Unit – The Directorate for ICT and Joint Services for Higher Education and Research has, since the Government’s national goals and guidelines came in 2017, negotiated with Elsevier about an agreement that will ensure such open access to articles published by Norwegian researchers. Unit negotiates and manages agreements on behalf of Norwegian research institutions. The agreement with Elsevier, known as the Science Direct Freedom Collection, has 44 Norwegian participants from universities, university colleges, research institutes and health enterprises. It is the largest deal unit dealer.

  • In order to succeed with the transition to open publishing, the negotiations have been carried out based on a set of principles:
  • Articles with corresponding authors from Norway shall be openly available at the time of publication
  • Open publishing should not increase the total cost of the agreements
  • Full transparency in license terms, costs and business models
  • Permanent access to content published in subscription journal
  • Movement is to be shown against agreements where costs are related to the volume of Norwegian institutions’ publication….”

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….”

Gundersen: Ulovlig forslag fra Nybø om statsautorisert publisering

From Google’s English: “Power does not only grow out of the windshields, it also grows out of the presses. With the draconian plan for open publication the research minister launches, the authorities will take control of the scientific press in 2020….I do not know if they are inspired by Maos ‘big leap,’ but research minister Iselin Nybø and Director of Research Council John-Arne Røttingen promote a very radical policy for open-access research…Instead of paying subscriptions, researchers must use research funds to buy themselves. Should you have quality assured publication, it costs anyway, the difference is whether it is the reader or the author who pays….”