Is Plan S too expensive?

26 views
Skip to first unread message

David Wojick

unread,
Dec 8, 2018, 4:57:17 PM12/8/18
to osi20...@googlegroups.com
Angela Cochran has a superb TSK piece on, among other things, the numerous expensive requirements in the Plan S Implementation Guidance.

"Plan S: A Mandate for Gold OA with Lots of Strings Attached"

Taken all together they make journal compliance expensive. (I am tempted to pun it is gold plated.) If this is combined with a relatively low APC cap it might even make gold compliance financially impossible. 

David

JJE Esposito

unread,
Dec 8, 2018, 7:52:48 PM12/8/18
to David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative
This is correct. Meanwhile, the NY Times is running a story that argues that journal publishers should be doing even more editorial review. Plan S pulls in one direction, quality editorial in the other. But this should not be a surprise.


Joe Esposito

--
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/osi2016-25.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
Joseph J. Esposito
espo...@gmail.com
@josephjesposito
+Joseph Esposito

David Wojick

unread,
Dec 9, 2018, 8:47:14 AM12/9/18
to JJE Esposito, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Perhaps the biggest cost driver is one we have not yet mentioned. This is that poor country authors pay 0 APC and medium income country authors (this should include China) get an unspecified "discount." What the discount is, whether say 5% or 50%, is not known, once again making journal decision making difficult if not impossible. I think a journal might have to ration acceptances in order to avoid being flooded (and ruined) with low or no income articles.

What is clear is that Plan S is far more than an OA mandate. It is a drive for a specific global publishing system, a system that may not be economically sustainable. 

Harvey Kane says the problem is that the Plan S architects do not understand publishing. I am beginning to think he may be right.

David

David Wojick

unread,
Dec 9, 2018, 11:34:54 AM12/9/18
to Anthony Watkinson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Low income countries get a waiver. China is a middle income country so gets the discount. It is based on per capita income, not GDP and there are several international standards. Angela discusses this briefly. It is yet another new unanswered question in the question cascade.

David

At 10:46 AM 12/9/2018, Anthony Watkinson wrote:
I do not think China has a low enough GDP to attract a waiver.

Anthony Watkinson

unread,
Dec 9, 2018, 11:41:02 AM12/9/18
to David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative

It looks as if I should have read Angela more carefully.

 

The implementation plan seems to throw a nod in the direction of those who fairly believe that the APC model of OA disadvantages researchers who are underfunded

“The journal/platform must provide automatic APC waivers for authors from low-income countries and discounts for authors in middle-income countries.”

How this is to be determined is not at all explained. Currently, some journals use the World Bank designations, others use HINARI which is based on World Bank data, and still others make up their own maps. Waivers for APCs is a controversial topic with many complaining that they are unevenly applied. The lack of detail here does not adequately address concerns nor explain exactly what is required.

And as you will have read the waivers and discounts might well apply to compliant hybrids – in her view.

Depending on the current waiver/discount structure for a particular publisher this could indeed severely cut into revenue.

 

I cannot understand how the funding bodies could have promulgated these proposed mandates with so little thought.

 

Anthony

JJE Esposito

unread,
Dec 9, 2018, 11:43:47 AM12/9/18
to Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative
"I cannot understand how the funding bodies could have promulgated these proposed mandates with so little thought."

What characterizes this space is a total lack of curiosity.

Joe Esposito

Margaret Winker Cook

unread,
Dec 9, 2018, 11:48:23 AM12/9/18
to JJE Esposito, Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative
For journals that use the HINARI criteria for waivers, eligibility is listed here https://www.who.int/hinari/eligibility/en/ .
China is not included.
Margaret


Margaret Winker, MD
Trustee, WAME
***
wame.org
http://wame.blog
@WAMedEditors
www.facebook.com/WAMEmembers
-Views are my own.-

David Wojick

unread,
Dec 9, 2018, 12:01:19 PM12/9/18
to JJE Esposito, The Open Scholarship Initiative
What is "this space" Joe? I do not understand.

David


At 11:43 AM 12/9/2018, JJE Esposito wrote:
"I cannot understand how the funding bodies could have promulgated these proposed mandates with so little thought."

What characterizes this space is a total lack of curiosity.

Joe Esposito

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 11:41 AM 'Anthony Watkinson' via The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
It looks as if I should have read Angela more carefully.

Â

The implementation plan seems to throw a nod in the direction of those who fairly believe that the APC model of OA disadvantages researchers who are underfunded

“The journal/platform must provide automatic APC waivers for authors from low-income countries and discounts for authors in middle-income countries.â€

How this is to be determined is not at all explained. Currently, some journals use the World Bank designations, others use HINARI which is based on World Bank data, and still others make up their own maps. Waivers for APCs is a controversial topic with many complaining that they are unevenly applied. The lack of detail here does not adequately address concerns nor explain exactly what is required.

And as you will have read the waivers and discounts might well apply to compliant hybrids – in her view.

Depending on the current waiver/discount structure for a particular publisher this could indeed severely cut into revenue.

Â

I cannot understand how the funding bodies could have promulgated these proposed mandates with so little thought.

Â

Anthony

Â

From: David Wojick [ mailto:dwo...@craigellachie.us]
Sent: 09 December 2018 16:23
To: Anthony Watkinson
Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative'
Subject: RE: Is Plan S too expensive?

Â

Low income countries get a waiver. China is a middle income country so gets the discount. It is based on per capita income, not GDP and there are several international standards. Angela discusses this briefly. It is yet another new unanswered question in the question cascade.

David

At 10:46 AM 12/9/2018, Anthony Watkinson wrote:

I do not think China has a low enough GDP to attract a waiver.
Â
Sent: 09 December 2018 13:50
To: JJE Esposito
Cc: The Open Scholarship Initiative
Subject: Re: Is Plan S too expensive?
Â
Perhaps the biggest cost driver is one we have not yet mentioned. This is that poor country authors pay 0 APC and medium income country authors (this should include China) get an unspecified "discount." What the discount is, whether say 5% or 50%, is not known, once again making journal decision making difficult if not impossible. I think a journal might have to ration acceptances in order to avoid being flooded (and ruined) with low or no income articles.
Â
What is clear is that Plan S is far more than an OA mandate. It is a drive for a specific global publishing system, a system that may not be economically sustainable.
Â
Harvey Kane says the problem is that the Plan S architects do not understand publishing. I am beginning to think he may be right.
Â
David

On Dec 8, 2018, at 7:52 PM, JJE Esposito <jjoh...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is correct. Meanwhile, the NY Times is running a story that argues that journal publishers should be doing even more editorial review. Plan S pulls in one direction, quality editorial in the other. But this should not be a surprise.

On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 4:57 PM David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us > wrote:

Angela Cochran has a superb TSK piece on, among other things, the numerous expensive requirements in the Plan S Implementation Guidance.

"Plan S: A Mandate for Gold OA with Lots of Strings Attached"

Taken all together they make journal compliance expensive. (I am tempted to pun it is gold plated.) If this is combined with a relatively low APC cap it might even make gold compliance financially impossible.

As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Â

Â

Anthony Watkinson

unread,
Dec 9, 2018, 12:01:32 PM12/9/18
to David Wojick, JJE Esposito, The Open Scholarship Initiative

I do not think China has a low enough GDP to attract a waiver.

 

From: osi20...@googlegroups.com [mailto:osi20...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick


Sent: 09 December 2018 13:50
To: JJE Esposito
Cc: The Open Scholarship Initiative
Subject: Re: Is Plan S too expensive?

 

Perhaps the biggest cost driver is one we have not yet mentioned. This is that poor country authors pay 0 APC and medium income country authors (this should include China) get an unspecified "discount." What the discount is, whether say 5% or 50%, is not known, once again making journal decision making difficult if not impossible. I think a journal might have to ration acceptances in order to avoid being flooded (and ruined) with low or no income articles.

JJE Esposito

unread,
Dec 9, 2018, 12:49:03 PM12/9/18
to David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative
The "space"--the area of discourse--is discussion and activity such as Plan S that seeks a top-down, comprehensive, and global makeover (I will not use the word "solution") to a diverse, eclectic, and bottom-up environment, populated by a multitude of players that pursue different activities for different reasons. I hasten to add that I do not have a stake in what is often called "the system," though current practices are so diverse that I fail to see anything systematic about it. Ironically, if Plan S strives for widespread implementation, people in my line of business will profit handsomely, as the wreckage is a jobs program for consultants.

Joe Esposito

David Wojick

unread,
Dec 9, 2018, 1:57:08 PM12/9/18
to JJE Esposito, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Thanks Joe and I agree completely. I was afraid "this space" was OSI.

There is an almost amusing clear example of the Plan S architects lack of understanding of the publishing business. Their financial disclosure terms, especially "direct" and "indirect" costs, are not business accounting terms at all. They are grant budget terms that have no meaning in business analysis.

David


At 12:48 PM 12/9/2018, JJE Esposito wrote:
The "space"--the area of discourse--is discussion and activity such as Plan S that seeks a top-down, comprehensive, and global makeover (I will not use the word "solution") to a diverse, eclectic, and bottom-up environment, populated by a multitude of players that pursue different activities for different reasons. I hasten to add that I do not have a stake in what is often called "the system," though current practices are so diverse that I fail to see anything systematic about it. Ironically, if Plan S strives for widespread implementation, people in my line of business will profit handsomely, as the wreckage is a jobs program for consultants.

Joe Esposito

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:01 PM David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us > wrote:
What is "this space" Joe? I do not understand.

David

At 11:43 AM 12/9/2018, JJE Esposito wrote:
"I cannot understand how the funding bodies could have promulgated these proposed mandates with so little thought."

What characterizes this space is a total lack of curiosity.

Joe Esposito

On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 11:41 AM 'Anthony Watkinson' via The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
It looks as if I should have read Angela more carefully.
Â
The implementation plan seems to throw a nod in the direction of those who fairly believe that the APC model of OA disadvantages researchers who are underfunded
“The journal/platform must provide automatic APC wawaivers for authors from low-income countries and discounts for authors in middle-income countries.â€
How this is to be determined is not at all explained. Currently, some journals use the World Bank designations, others use HINARI which is based on World Bank data, and still others make up their own maps. Waivers for APCs is a controversial topic with many complaining that they are unevenly applied. The lack of detail here does not adequately address concerns nor explain exactly what is required.
And as you will have read the waivers and discounts might well apply to compliant hybrids â€â€œ in her view.
Depending on the current waiver/discount structure for a particular publisher this could indeed severely cut into revenue.
Â
I cannot understand how the funding bodies could have promulgated these proposed mandates with so little thought.
Â
Anthony
Â
Sent: 09 December 2018 16:23
To: Anthony Watkinson
Cc: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative'
Subject: RE: Is Plan S too expensive?
Â
Low income countries get a waiver. China is a middle income country so gets the discount. It is based on per capita income, not GDP and there are several international standards. Angela discusses this briefly. It is yet another new unanswered question in the question cascade.
David
At 10:46 AM 12/9/2018, Anthony Watkinson wrote:
I do not think China has a low enough GDP to attract a waiver.
Â
Sent: 09 December 2018 13:50
To: JJE Esposito
Cc: The Open Scholarship Initiative
Subject: Re: Is Plan S too expensive?
Â
Perhaps the biggest cost driver is one we have not yet mentioned. This is that poor country authors pay 0 APC and medium income country authors (this should include China) get an unspecified "discount." What the discount is, whether say 5% or 50%, is not known, once again making journal decision making difficult if not impossible. I think a journal might have to ration acceptances in order to avoid being flooded (and ruined) with low or no income articles.
Â
What is clear is that Plan S is far more than an OA mandate. It is a drive for a specific global publishing system, a system that may not be economically sustainable.
Â
Harvey Kane says the problem is that the Plan S architects do not understand publishing. I am beginning to think he may be right.
Â
David
On Dec 8, 2018, at 7:52 PM, JJE Esposito <jjoh...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is correct. Meanwhile, the NY Times is running a story that argues that journal publishers should be doing even more editorial review. Plan S pulls in one direction, quality editorial in the other. But this should not be a surprise.
On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 4:57 PM David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us > wrote:
Angela Cochran has a superb TSK piece on, among other things, the numerous expensive requirements in the Plan S Implementation Guidance.
"Plan S: A Mandate for Gold OA with Lots of Strings Attached"

Taken all together they make journal compliance expensive. (I am tempted to pun it is gold plated.) If this is combined with a relatively low APC cap it might even make gold compliance financially impossible.
As a public and publicly-funded effort, the conversations on this list can be viewed by the public and are archived. To read this group's complete listserv policy (including disclaimer and reuse information), please visit http://osinitiative.org/osi-listservs.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Open Scholarship Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to osi2016-25+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to osi20...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Â
Â

Rick Anderson

unread,
Dec 10, 2018, 10:37:05 AM12/10/18
to Anthony Watkinson, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative

> And as you will have read the waivers and discounts might well apply

> to compliant hybrids – in her view.

 

But it’s important to bear in mind that under Plan S, the only “compliant” hybrid journals are those that are in the process of becoming fully OA journals. (Notice the use of the phrase “under a transformative agreement” that appears repeatedly in the implementation guidelines.) So in reality, there doesn’t seem to be any such thing as a “compliant hybrid journal” under Plan S.

 

---

Rick Anderson

Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication

Marriott Library, University of Utah

rick.a...@utah.edu

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages