Swedish funder withdraws support for Plan S
Richard Gedye
One of the initial supporters of Plan S and founding members of cOAlition S has indicated that it “cannot support Plan S in its current form.”
More details at https://rj.se/globalassets/forskningsnyheter/2019/coalition-s_rj_190306.pdf
Richard
Lisa Hinchliffe
--
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.
David Wojick
David
At 01:24 PM 3/20/2019, Lisa Hinchliffe wrote:
"RJ remains in the Coalition S, but cannot support Plan S in its current form."Â
I have to say I'm puzzled. What does it mean to be in the Coalition if one does not support the document around which the Coalition was formed?Â
___
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
lisali...@gmail.com
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 12:21 PM Richard Gedye <ric...@gedye.plus.com > wrote:
- One of the initial supporters of Plan S and founding members of cOAlition S has indicated that it “cannot support Plan S in its current form.â€
- Â
- Â
- Richard
- --
- 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.
Dempsey,Lorcan
Well, in other Swedish news, many folks will have prob seen the statement from the University of Uppsala (apologies if I just didn’t notice it on the list). Where (see below) they applaud the decision.
Caution about Plan S on the grounds that one does not want to upset the “quality assurance” system established journals provide. As noted, the prestige or reputational or brand economy trumps considerations of broader access.
I thought it was interesting (odd?) that they worry that Plan S may interfere with the citation databases that allow “fair bibliometric comparisons.”
I was also a bit surprised at this statement: “So far, universities have not played a prominent role in the debate.” I was not sure whether this was to overlook the participation of university libraries in the debate, or whether they meant university administrations/presidents. In either case seemed also odd.
They talk about individual scholars being caught between the interests of two groups – “heavyweight research funding bodies in one corner and dominant media conglomerates in the other.” They also suggest that a transition to open access requires awareness that “well-designed scholarly publication systems are an important dimension of the in-built quality assurance systems in research (through peer review prior to publication).”
Again, I thought it a little odd they did not seem to more explicitly connect the management of the quality assurance system with the services of the “dominant media conglomerates.” The academy has sourced the management of quality assurance and prestige management with a publishing apparatus which has become increasingly consolidated in the hands of several large publishers.
If we are to achieve a good transition to Open Access, we need forums for common action to change the system, not shock therapy, which risks undesired side-effects. And instead of being committed to a single path forward, we should encourage a diversity of paths to Open Access. We would like to encourage the Swedish funding bodies that have endorsed Plan S to consider this.
At the time of writing, the news has come that Riksbankens Jubileumsfond has reconsidered its position and announced that, although it intends to stay in cOAlition S and its general campaign for Open Access, it no longer endorses Plan S in its present form. A brave and sensible decision in the present situation.
--
Rick Anderson
When they say “universities have not played a prominent role in the debate,” I wonder if they mean “faculty have not been extensively consulted.”
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
Michael Eisen
Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Professor of Genetics, Genomics and Development
University of California, Berkeley
Rick Anderson
Yyyyeeeaaahhhh, except that the reality of climate change is a matter of science, whereas the appropriateness of Plan S is a matter of opinion. So failing to consult oil companies on solutions to climate change is hardly a good analogy for failing to consult researchers on Plan S.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
Glenn Hampson
I’m not sure this is the right analogy Mike. It’s been floated on Twitter by Lenny and others---you’re not the only one to use it.
Commercial publishers produce most of the world’s open content. It isn’t enough open content in the opinion of many, but as far as the commercials are concerned, it’s all the market can bear---there aren’t enough buyers for more (and if there were, they’d be all over it making even more money). The fact that umpteen thousand gold publishers exist who are also churning out OA articles is great, but they don’t account for the majority of these articles---that’s commercial output.
This output structure doesn’t change the fact that we want more, or the argument that we need more. What it does change, however, is our assessment of responsibility. If we’re framing open as something society needs to do---like addressing climate change---then the action plan for open needs to come from “society” (aka all stakeholder groups) and not from one marketplace participant. We need to change consumption incentives, incentivize different kinds of outputs, coordinate actions, collaborate on best practices, and so on---not complain that one single group isn’t leading the way.
So maybe in the Swedish argument, universities need to lead the way by recognizing the importance of this issue and come up with ways to stop perpetuating the status quo by valuing impact factors, rewarding publishing output, and so on. But they also need to do so in a way that still retains the value from these systems.
Submitted FWIW.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Michael Eisen
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 8:40 AM
To: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>
Michael Eisen
Rick Anderson
Another bad analogy, bad for the same reasons. As long as you’re using oil companies and climate change solutions as an analogy for researchers and Plan S, you’re barking up the wrong logical tree.
Lisa Hinchliffe
lisali...@gmail.com
Glenn Hampson
But since we all like analogies and they can be helpful, maybe health care reform is a better one---still not perfect but there are parallels with regard to lots of different opinions about urgency, inputs/outputs, multi-stakeholder involvement, multiple approaches, payment misalignment, incentive misalignment, fraud, moral-ethical arguments, etc.
Rick Anderson
For the record, I have nothing to say about how and whether cOAlition S tried to consult with publishers, and how and whether publishers responded.
My concern is about how and whether cOAlition S consulted with the researchers whose work and freedom to choose will be significantly impacted by Plan S.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
David Wojick
David
At 01:26 PM 3/22/2019, Rick Anderson wrote:
For the record, I have nothing to say about how and whether cOAlition S tried to consult with publishers, and how and whether publishers responded.
My concern is about how and whether cOAlition S consulted with the researchers whose work and freedom to choose will be significantly impacted by Plan S.
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
rick.a...@utah.edu
From: Lisa Hinchliffe <lisali...@gmail.com>
Date: Friday, March 22, 2019 at 11:04 AM
To: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu>
Cc: "Michael B. Eisen" <mbe...@gmail.com>, "Dempsey,Lorcan" <demp...@oclc.org>, Richard Gedye <ric...@gedye.plus.com>, The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [External] Swedish funder withdraws support for Plan S
Lets play with Michael's analogy that Plan S is like the Green New Deal or the like. As I see it then, one might say that the problem is that Plan S heavily consulted the "oil companies" ... i.e. the big commercial publishers had multiple seemingly closed door opportunities to speak with the creators of Plan S, including a December session through the STM Association after the guidelines were released.
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
lisali...@gmail.com
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019, 11:13 AM Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu > wrote:
- Another bad analogy, bad for the same reasons. As long as you’re using oil companies and climate change solutions as an analogy for researchers and Plan S, you’re barking up the wrong logical tree.
- ---
- Rick Anderson
- Desk: (801) 587-9989
- Cell: (801) 721-1687
- rick.a...@utah.edu
- From: Michael Eisen <mbe...@gmail.com>
- Reply-To: "mbe...@gmail.com" <mbe...@gmail.com>
- To: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu >
- ---
- Rick Anderson
- Desk: (801) 587-9989
- Cell: (801) 721-1687
- rick.a...@utah.edu
- From: Michael Eisen <mbe...@gmail.com>
- Reply-To: "mbe...@gmail.com" <mbe...@gmail.com>
- To: Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu >
- Kind of like oil companies complaining about not being involved in discussions about climate change. When people try to fix an obvious problem you’ve been ignoring for 25 years you don’t get the right to complain about not being consulted.
- On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 8:11 AM Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu > wrote:
- When they say “universities have not played a prominent role in the debate,†I wonder if they mean “faculty have not been extensively consulted.â€
- ---
- Rick Anderson
- Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
- Marriott Library, University of Utah
- Desk: (801) 587-9989
- Cell: (801) 721-1687
- rick.a...@utah.edu
- From: < osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of "Dempsey,Lorcan" <demp...@oclc.org>
- Date: Friday, March 22, 2019 at 9:08 AM
- To: Richard Gedye <ric...@gedye.plus.com >, 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: RE: [External] Swedish funder withdraws support for Plan S
- Well, in other Swedish news, many folks will have prob seen the statement from the University of Uppsala (apologies if I just didn’t notice it on the list). Where (see below) they applaud the decision.
- Caution about Plan S on the grounds that one does not want to upset the “quality assurance†system established journals provide. As noted, the prestige or reputational or brand economy trumps considerations of broader access.
- I thought it was interesting (odd?) that they worry that Plan S may interfere with the citation databases that allow “fair bibliometric comparisons.â€
- I was also a bit surprised at this statement: “So far, universities have not played a prominent role in the debate.†I was not sure whether this was to overlook the participation of university libraries in the debate, or whether they meant university administrations/presidents. In either case seemed also odd.
- They talk about individual scholars being caught between the interests of two groups –  œheavyweight research funding bodies in one corner and dominant media conglomerates in the other.†They also suggest that a transition to open access requires awareness that “well-designed scholarly publication systems are an important dimension of the in-built quality assurance systems in research (through peer review prior to publication).â€
- Again, I thought it a little odd they did not seem to more explicitly connect the management of the quality assurance system with the services of the “dominant media conglomerates.†The academy has sourced the management of quality assurance and prestige management with a publishing apparatus which has become increasingly consolidated in the hands of several large publishers.
- http://vicechancellorsblog.uu.se/2019/03/08/open-access-absolutely-but-dont-jeopardise-research-quality-and-freedom/
- If we are to achieve a good transition to Open Access, we need forums for common action to change the system, not shock therapy, which risks undesired side-effects. And instead of being committed to a single path forward, we should encourage a diversity of paths to Open Access. We would like to encourage the Swedish funding bodies that have endorsed Plan S to consider this.
- At the time of writing, the news has come that Riksbankens Jubileumsfond has reconsidered its position and announced that, although it intends to stay in cOAlition S and its general campaign for Open Access, it no longer endorses Plan S in its present form. A brave and sensible decision in the present situation.
- From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Richard Gedye
- Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 1:21 PM
- To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: [External] Swedish funder withdraws support for Plan S
- One of the initial supporters of Plan S and founding members of cOAlition S has indicated that it “cannot support Plan S in its current form.â€
Anthony Watkinson
I tend to make a distinction between Plan S as announced and coalition S post Smits which is tasked with implementation. At APE in January I ask Robert Jan Smits if he had asked any researchers before formulating Plan S. I pointed out each discipline has a European society or association thus offering an appropriate level to consult. As I read it he said they had not done so. The exchange is on video via the APE site so you can see for yourselves. I muddied the water slightly (as you will see) by suggesting that it was librarians rather than researchers who provided the backing for OA in early days. He muddied it further by saying that librarians were academics.
Anthony
Anthony Watkinson
Principal Consultant CIBER Research
Honorary Lecturer University College London
Director Charleston Library Conference
David Wojick
David
Another bad analogy, bad for the same reasons. As long as you̢۪re using oil companies es and climate change solutions as an analogy for researchers and Plan S, you̢۪re barking up the wrong logical tree. e.
Kind of like oil companies complaining about not being involved in discussions about climate change. When people try to fix an obvious problem you̢۪ve been en ignoring for 25 years you don̢۪t get the right to to complain about not being consulted.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 8:11 AM Rick Anderson <rick.a...@utah.edu > wrote:
When they say “universities have not played a prominent role in n the debate,†I wonder if they mean “faculty have not been extensively y consulted.â€
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
rick.a...@utah.edu
From: < osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of "Dempsey,Lorcan" <demp...@oclc.org>
Date: Friday, March 22, 2019 at 9:08 AM
To: Richard Gedye <ric...@gedye.plus.com >, 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [External] Swedish funder withdraws support for Plan S
Well, in other Swedish news, many folks will have prob seen the statement from the University of Uppsala (apologies if I just didn’t ¢t notice it on the list). Where (see below) they applaud the decision.
Caution about Plan S on the grounds that one does not want to upset the “quality y assurance†system established journals provide. As noted, the prestige or reputational or brand economy trumps considerations of broader access.
I thought it was interesting (odd?) that they worry that Plan S may interfere with the citation databases that allow “fair bibliometric comparisons.†€
I was also a bit surprised at this statement: “So far, universities have not played a a prominent role in the debate.†I was not sure whether this was to overlook the participation of university libraries in the debate, or whether they meant university administrations/presidents. In either case seemed also odd.
They talk about individual scholars being caught between the interests of two groups –  œheavyweight research funding bodies in one one corner and dominant media conglomerates in the other.†They also suggest that a transition to open access requires awareness that “well-designed scholarly publication systems s are an important dimension of the in-built quality assurance systems in research (through peer review prior to publication).â€
Again, I thought it a little odd they did not seem to more explicitly connect the management of the quality assurance system with the services of the “dominant t media conglomerates.†The academy has sourced the management of quality assurance and prestige management with a publishing apparatus which has become increasingly consolidated in the hands of several large publishers.
http://vicechancellorsblog.uu.se/2019/03/08/open-access-absolutely-but-dont-jeopardise-research-quality-and-freedom/
If we are to achieve a good transition to Open Access, we need forums for common action to change the system, not shock therapy, which risks undesired side-effects. And instead of being committed to a single path forward, we should encourage a diversity of paths to Open Access. We would like to encourage the Swedish funding bodies that have endorsed Plan S to consider this.
At the time of writing, the news has come that Riksbankens Jubileumsfond has reconsidered its position and announced that, although it intends to stay in cOAlition S and its general campaign for Open Access, it no longer endorses Plan S in its present form. A brave and sensible decision in the present situation.
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Richard Gedye
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2019 1:21 PM
To: 'The Open Scholarship Initiative' < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [External] Swedish funder withdraws support for Plan S
One of the initial supporters of Plan S and founding members of cOAlition S has indicated that it “cannot support Plan S in its current t form.â€
Glenn Hampson
Further conflicted, as has been pointed out in various articles and emails, because subscription revenues from society publications support researchers---conferences, training, etc.
Anthony Watkinson
I am a member of faculty (though now honorary) at UCL but missed the town meeting held by UCL hierarchy to discuss Plan S. A friend has just told me about the really heavy debate that apparently occurred among 150 academics. I have also received an account of the views expressed verbally from a UCL Open Access leader and which can be seen from the following blog: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/open-access/2019/01/10/ucl-plan-s-town-hall-meeting/. Now I have some suspicion of views coming from university hierarchies supposedly representing the research body as a whole BUT it is important to bear in mind that UCL at the highest level has prided itself on OA support – for example in the founding and development of the OA UCL Press and in various pronouncements over the years. Many researchers consider they have been ignored.
Anthony
Rebecca Kennison
Rick Anderson
We talk a lot about changing reward systems to reward openness, and I think part of the resistance to that idea comes from the fact that openness in itself says nothing one way or the other about the quality of the science: you can have either a fantastic or a lousy study published in either an OA or a toll-access journal. My impression is that faculty have a hard time seeing why openness _in itself_ ought to be seen as a marker of scholarly achievement or research quality, which are exactly the things they’re looking for when judging each other’s academic progress.
It’s not that academics don’t like openness or think it’s a good thing; in my experience the great majority of academics think openness (or at least open access) is great. The question is whether they can be convinced that the openness of a publication should count specifically as a measure of its academic quality, which is what they care about most.
(And I know—because I’ve heard it before—that one response to what I’m saying will be “Yeah, but faculty do clearly value publication in high-impact/high-reputation journals, and that doesn’t tell us anything about scholarly quality either.” My impression is that, rightly or wrongly, most academics would strongly disagree with that statement.)
---
Rick Anderson
Assoc. Dean for Collections & Scholarly Communication
Marriott Library, University of Utah
Desk: (801) 587-9989
Cell: (801) 721-1687
From: <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Rebecca Kennison <rrken...@knconsultants.org>
Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 at 3:22 PM
To: Anthony Watkinson <anthony....@btinternet.com>