Global Flow of Scholarly Publishing And Open Access | Elements | GeoScienceWorld

“More equitable alternatives are required, such as returning to the earlier model by which a research paper is not regarded as a for-profit commodity but as a public-serving good. However, there is a relatively simple, cost- and risk-free option: a majority of the journals in geochemistry have a green colour according to the SHERPA/RoMEO grading system (Fig. 1), indicating that pre-print and post-print articles submitted to journals can be archived in a repository. According to the Web of Science among the 885 articles published in Elements, only 56 were OA as Gold or Bronze (data accessed on 01/02/2020). The change started three years ago with an increase of up to 31% total OA articles in 2018. This change was mainly because author institutions required authors to publish articles as OA, and so paid for this….

Finally, in parallel to traditional journal publication, there is a clear role for self-archiving of peer-reviewed accepted manuscripts (post-print): the Green OA route. The policy of making research available to the wider public in some countries has essentially set up institutional repositories to do just this [e.g., the Hyper Articles en Ligne (HAL) repository in France]. The Green route is cost-free for authors, and numerous platforms and collaborative tools for pre-prints (e.g., EarthArXiv) are available for researchers to pursue Green OA. However, the pre-print model remains little-known and is not being routinely used by geochemists. Another problem is that the current APC model has additional restrictions on the publication of research from developing countries where OA fees are beyond reach, resulting in authors seeking out the lower- or no-cost options found in “predatory journals”, i.e., those journals that lack the support from academic societies, use unvalidated review processes, and have a for-profit approach with little clear consideration for what is written. Unfortunately, there are ample opportunities to publish scientific research as OA papers in such journals. The publishing practices of these types of journal challenge the long-term future of full peer review and of publishing ethics. There is currently much discussion between professional and learned societies and academic publishers on this subject (e.g., the Society Publishers Accelerating Open Access and Plan S project) (Wise and Estelle 2019). I encourage the geochemical community to be active; to consult and take action; and to prioritize our research with straightforward, open and rigorous peer review, and visibility…..”

Gold Open Access, Organizational and Discipline-Specific Barriers to its Adoption and Business Model Viability | Open Research Community

“Thus, transformative Gold Open Access agreements do not necessarily produce win-win results for publishers and universities, since they likely demand capital investment, protracted inter-organizational negotiations, and expertise-related costs. This indicates the likely continued importance of Green and hybrid Open Access for the scholarly publishing market and a significant role for innovative business models in this sector.”

How PLOS uses Dimensions to validate next generation Open Access agreements | Dimensions

“While there are few, if any, organizations that can claim to have perfect data, the goal should undoubtedly be to strive for a level that is as good as possible. “Data underpins and supports the discussions, the agreements and of course the metrics for success following an agreement,” says Sara. She continues, “at PLOS, we combine data from our own internal sources together with external data sources like Dimensions – which give us the crucial, broader view of the market place outside of PLOS alone.”

How does Dimensions support PLOS? “PLOS relies on Dimensions for baseline data about institutions and their funding sources for agreement discussions but also for internal business analytics,” notes Sara. She adds,  Dimensions Analytics is particularly easy to use for non-analysts like myself who want to get in, get a specific question answered (like who is the most frequent funder of a  specific country or institution), and get out quickly.” PLOS understands that subject matter experts need to dedicate their time to more significant impact analysis tasks.  Accessing a database like Dimensions Analytics that already provides analytical views – layered on top of the data itself – means that many questions can be answered by the PLOS team at all levels. …”

How PLOS uses Dimensions to validate next generation Open Access agreements | Dimensions

“While there are few, if any, organizations that can claim to have perfect data, the goal should undoubtedly be to strive for a level that is as good as possible. “Data underpins and supports the discussions, the agreements and of course the metrics for success following an agreement,” says Sara. She continues, “at PLOS, we combine data from our own internal sources together with external data sources like Dimensions – which give us the crucial, broader view of the market place outside of PLOS alone.”

How does Dimensions support PLOS? “PLOS relies on Dimensions for baseline data about institutions and their funding sources for agreement discussions but also for internal business analytics,” notes Sara. She adds,  Dimensions Analytics is particularly easy to use for non-analysts like myself who want to get in, get a specific question answered (like who is the most frequent funder of a  specific country or institution), and get out quickly.” PLOS understands that subject matter experts need to dedicate their time to more significant impact analysis tasks.  Accessing a database like Dimensions Analytics that already provides analytical views – layered on top of the data itself – means that many questions can be answered by the PLOS team at all levels. …”

The datafication in transformative agreements for open access publishing | Samuel Moore

Transformative agreements are an increasingly common way for universities and consortia to shift publisher business models towards open access. They do this through a prearranged payment that allows institutions to access subscription content while allowing future research to published in an openly accessible form. These deals are a way for publishers to continue to receive subscription income and boast about their open access content, while universities value them as a cost-neutral strategy for transitioning away from subscriptions towards open access (read Lisa Hinchliffe’s primer for an excellent summary of transformative agreements).

Such agreements are being announced by universities and national negotiating bodies on a weekly basis. This week Elsevier announced a pilot agreement with the University of Florida, while Taylor & Francis promoted its new deal with a Finnish library consortium. In recent weeks we’ve also seen deals announced between Springer-Nature and the University of California, and Elsevier and a consortium of Dutch universities. It has been pretty clear for some time that transformative agreements are going to be a dominant model for the transition to open access, particularly for the larger commercial publishers who are quickly learning how to work these deals to their advantage.

There are a number of critics of transformative agreements. Many commentators argue that these deals have a tendency to benefit the publisher rather than the university, as Sicco de Knecht argues with respect to the Elsevier-Netherlands deal. Similarly, Dave Ghamandi describes these deals as a ‘con’ that does nothing to shift power away from the ‘monopolists’. I’m embedding Dave’s Twitter thread below because it is an excellent and impassioned argument about commercial ownership of scholarly communication and the way that transformative agreements merely reinforce rather than counter this problem.

FinELib and Taylor & Francis open up publishing choices for researchers in Finland – Taylor & Francis Newsroom

“FinELib, the Finnish library consortium, and Taylor & Francis Group, one of the world’s leading academic publishers, have announced a new ‘read & publish’ agreement, which runs until the end of 2022.

Along with continued access to Taylor & Francis and Routledge journals, researchers based at one of the 15 participating Finnish institutions are now able to publish their articles open access in over 2000 Taylor & Francis Open Select (hybrid) journals without needing to pay an article publishing charge. The agreement will cover about 75% of the total article output….”

FinELib and Taylor & Francis open up publishing choices for researchers in Finland – Taylor & Francis Newsroom

“FinELib, the Finnish library consortium, and Taylor & Francis Group, one of the world’s leading academic publishers, have announced a new ‘read & publish’ agreement, which runs until the end of 2022.

Along with continued access to Taylor & Francis and Routledge journals, researchers based at one of the 15 participating Finnish institutions are now able to publish their articles open access in over 2000 Taylor & Francis Open Select (hybrid) journals without needing to pay an article publishing charge. The agreement will cover about 75% of the total article output….”

PLOS and Iowa State University Library announce APC-free Open Access publishing agreement – The Official PLOS Blog

“Iowa State University Library and the Public Library of Science (PLOS) today announced a three-year Open Access agreement that allows researchers to publish in PLOS’ suite of journals without incurring Article Processing Charges (APCs). This partnership brings together two organizations that believe researchers should be able to access content freely and make their work available publicly, regardless of their access to grant funds….”

Dutch Deal – Community-Owned Infrastructure

“Elsevier has negotiated a new deal with VSNU, a consortia of Dutch Universities. This new type of deal combines content with data analytics in a novel way. Signing the deal represents an insidious precedent for the academic community, and we’re following the impacts….”

Dutch open science deal primarily benefits Elsevier – ScienceGuide

“In summary, the deal boils down to Elsevier offering Dutch (corresponding) authors open access publishing options in nearly all of its scientific journals. However, a number of journals from the Cell and Lancet families have been excluded from the deal, for now. Additionally, both sides agreed to work towards the creation of infrastructure for research data and information, and to enter into ‘open science’ projects. All of this comes at a price of € 16.4 million per year.

Going by headlines in the national newspapers, one would get the impression that the Dutch are making a giant step forward on the path to open access and open science. But is this really the case? ScienceGuide asked experts and (co)negotiators and scrutinized the fine print of the contract. As it turns out, parties have agreed on very specific definitions of open access and open science, with vague articles in the agreement to underpin them. Agreements that are at odds with earlier statements on open science and on rewards and recognition….

However, due to the ‘unique’ nature of the contract, no true comparison can be made with other agreements. Not only because various Elsevier tools and platforms are also included in the contract, but especially because of the arrangements around what has become known as ‘Professional Services’. The market value of the ‘open science’ component is, after all, unknown….”