Um…blech. Is that a thought? OSIers warned about the paywall to playwall flip almost two years ago in our Plan S critique (https://journals.gmu.edu/index.php/osi/article/view/2450/1525) --- although at the time we were worried about the potential impact of a $2200 APC. Missed by just a hair. Subscription journals that are free to read after a modest embargo period are starting to look pretty good again….
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CAKjLim3tHR%2Bws_hs6wuvMBjfUSm4rTO%2BKDnLzX%3DL8tTbT6LC4w%40mail.gmail.com.
So Lisa, what does this mean then? Has the precedent been established for allowing APCs that are quite comfortable or is this situation an outlier? If it’s precedent, does it mean that:
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Lisa Hinchliffe
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 6:22 AM
To: The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CAKjLim2Ww3POCZCO-3V7z%2BdcsgTthAFfLDzKC4-9oQTS1_O4bg%40mail.gmail.com.
Making a Wojick Tree (sort of)…. Lisa, your replies are in red:
Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by “change.” It’s changed the conversation for sure, and kicked up a whole lot of dust, but as far as creating policy for inclusive, workable, lasting change, then no---it’s been a bust---at best a helpful exploration of options, but at worst a diversion that has (at least temporarily) sucked the oxygen out of the room for designing lasting and workable change at a global level.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CAKjLim1V1wN3FcbzPDZXB5kHQZUWHkb6s-s00fjugvWrWB2WFw%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CAKjLim1V1wN3FcbzPDZXB5kHQZUWHkb6s-s00fjugvWrWB2WFw%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/BYAPR13MB2293A8AC4DE0B046170CE782E1FA0%40BYAPR13MB2293.namprd13.prod.outlook.com.
To argue against myself David, all publishers have noticed Plan S and pretty much all have made allowances for it in their plans for the future---what kinds of products they will offer, how they’ll survive, etc. So Lisa is right in this sense---Plan S HAS changed the world. But even before Plan S, as you point out, Eric Archambault’s work showed that 50+% of all new articles are being published in an open format, and that the body of open is growing by about 4% annually. So change was already well underway. The monkey wrench that Plan S has thrown into the gears of progress is telling publishers EXACTLY what counts as progress on open---not listening to what their customers want or innovating change, but making a huge u-turn (and then back again) on solutions like hybrids. This is just policy improvisation---not well thought-out reform, but ideologically driven policy that has created publisher responses that are more defensive than innovative. And in this sense, the policy environment (and maybe the business environment) is now in a worse position, unwinding unanticipated (to some) consequences as well as continuing to search for truly workable solutions. So to pile onto your point, change is not just talk---and at the same time, forcing change without enough discussion is just a terrible idea all around.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/BD2A4F99-D12D-4104-BBFC-0E195F4DF623%40craigellachie.us.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/00d901d6c374%24e93e5f90%24bbbb1eb0%24%40nationalscience.org.
First Things
“For We Brought Nothing into this World, and it is certain we can carry Nothing Out!
And having FOOD and CLOTHING let us be with these Things CONTENT.
But They that will be Rich fall into Temptation and a Snare, and into many Foolish and Hurtful Lusts, which Plunge Men into Destruction…
But You, o man of God, FLEE these THINGS; and follow after RIGHTEOUSNESS…”
---- Holy Bible
Quite absurd to see Nature throwing this at us.
For me, unless academics take back the communication of research as a service to their community, commercial publishers will continue to behave in this way. My proposition is that, in addition to teaching and research, scholcomm duties should be part of the services of academia at certain levels of their career. We may thus need to jettison many of the current practices and parlances such as JIF and all, and probably click RESET. Taking advantage of technologies and a sense of duty, time to to reset scholcomm is now.Â
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 10:49 PM Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- To argue against myself David, all publishers have noticed Plan S and pretty much all have made allowances for it in their plans for the future---what kinds of products they will offer, how they’ll survive, etc. So Lisa is right in this sense---Plan S HAS changed the world. But even before Plan S, as you point out, Eric Archambault’s work showed that 50+% of all new articles are being published in an open format, and that the body of open is growing by about 4% annually. So change was already well underway. The monkey wrench that Plan S has thrown into the gears of progress is telling publishers EXACTLY what counts as progress on open---not listening to what their customers want or innovating change, but making a huge u-turn (and then back again) on solutions like hybrids. This is just policy improvisation---not well thought-out reform, but ideologically driven policy that has created publisher responses that are more defensive than innovative. And in this sense, the policy environment (and maybe the business environment) is now in a worse position, unwinding unanticipated (to some) consequences as well as continuing to search for truly workable solutions. So to pile onto your point, change is not just talk---and at the same time, forcing change without enough discussion is just a terrible idea all around.
- Â
- From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of David Wojick
- Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 2:17 PM
- To: Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org>
- Cc: The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: Re: Today's Nature News
- Â
- I tend to agree with Glenn. Talk of change is not change. If, say, 1000 journals flipped in order to keep their Plan S authors then that is real change. But even that would be small, just a few percent of all the journals. Nor do the so-called transformational agreements change much, because all the subscriptions are still paid for.Â
- Â
- I would say the world has changed in favor of OA, but not because of Plan S.
- Â
- David
- On Nov 25, 2020, at 4:28 PM, Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- 
- Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by “change.†It’s changed the conversation for sure, and kicked up a whole lot of dust, but as far as creating policy for inclusive, workable, lasting change, then no---it’s been a bust---at best a helpful exploration of options, but at worst a diversion that has (at least temporarily) sucked the oxygen out of the room for designing lasting and workable change at a global level.
- Â
- From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Lisa Hinchliffe
- Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 12:15 PM
- To: Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org>
- Cc: The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: Re: Today's Nature News
- Â
- Plan S already changed the world.Â
- Â
- On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 1:32 PM Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- Making a Wojick Tree (sort of)…. Lisa, your replies are in rred:
- Plan S won’t work because this price point is ridiculous
- What does it mean for Plan S to "work"?Â
- “Work†as in change the world. This isn’t a world-changing approach, though, so it seems unlikely.
- Plan S doesn’t care about price and is basically sanctioning the cleaving of science communication into haves and have-nots
- Possibly.Â
- Then we should be worried. Tying into questions 1 and 3, if we develop/sanction approaches that make the access+participation gaps even bigger than now, we’re going to damage research, not help it.
- The funders who support Plan S are going to drop out when they realize how much this is going to cost them
- Unlikely. Doesn't seem like they have to pay this to be in the Coalition. Three funders have already said they aren't paying APCs for any transformative journals at all.Â
- Researchers are going to revolt (where they can do so---probably against national funders first via their elected representatives) when the realize how much this is going to cost them
- What does "revolt" mean? Publish closed as they were already doing? If so, probably. But, that's not much of a revolt? Revolt by refusing the take the grant money? Definitely not.
- If we go to all this trouble and expense to change the world and the end result is that researchers say “meh,†or even worse, “open sucks!,†that’s a revolt---civil disobedience.
- Nature will fold
- LOLOLOLOL. No.
- Matthew Effect: Only the richest and most accomplished researchers will be able to publish in Nature---they may as well put a “stay off my lawn†logo on the front cover. And for a time, the rich will get richer. But eventually the journal will turn into an exclusive and clubby collection of materials that fails to capture the most innovative and exciting changes in science. And then, it will become irrelevant and will either need to open its doors again or history will pass it by.
- None of the above
- Maybe.
- All of the above
- No.
- Â
- Â
- From: Lisa Hinchliffe <lisali...@gmail.com >
- Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 10:59 AM
- To: Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org>
- Cc: The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: Re: Today's Nature News
- Â
- My off-the-cuff reaction:Â
- What does it mean for Plan S to "work"?Â
- Possibly.Â
- Unlikely. Doesn't seem like they have to pay this to be in the Coalition. Three funders have already said they aren't paying APCs for any transformative journals at all.Â
- What does "revolt" mean? Publish closed as they were already doing? If so, probably. But, that's not much of a revolt? Revolt by refusing the take the grant money? Definitely not.
- LOLOLOLOL. No.
- Maybe.
- No.
- Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
- lisali...@gmail.com
- Â
- Â
- Â
- On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:53 AM Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- So Lisa, what does this mean then? Has the precedent been established for allowing APCs that are quite comfortable or is this situation an outlier? If it’s precedent, does it mean that:
- Â
- Plan S won’t work because this price point is ridiculous
- Plan S doesn’t care about price and is basically sanctioning the cleaving of science communication into haves and have-nots
- The funders who support Plan S are going to drop out when they realize how much this is going to cost them
- Researchers are going to revolt (where they can do so---probably against national funders first via their elected representatives) when the realize how much this is going to cost them
- Nature will fold
- None of the above
- All of the above
- Â
- Â
- Â
- From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Lisa Hinchliffe
- Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 6:22 AM
- To: The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: Re: Today's Nature News
- Â
- Well, it didn't take long for me to get my answer on the Coalition. Application accepted ... they are listed:Â https://www.coalition-s.org/plan-s-compliant-transformative-journals/
- Â
- Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
- lisali...@gmail.com
- Â
- On Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 8:18 PM Lisa Hinchliffe <lisali...@gmail.com > wrote:
- May be too heavy a topic for those in the US who are trying to settle into their Thanksgiving week holiday and "I don't want to think about open access funding right now thank you very much Lisa!" but ... in case you are looking for some policy analysis diversion ...Â
- Â
- I'd love to hear thoughts on today's announcement from Nature:
- converting the Nature journals portfolio to hybrid and set a 9500 Euro APC OA option for all their formerly subscription only journals and thenÂ
- piloting with three Nature titles a new Guided OA model where everyone choosing that pathway pays 1/2 APC upon surviving past desk reject and then the second 1/2 of APC if accepted for publication but capping at 4750 Euro so a 50% discount off list APC.Â
- Not unexpectedly given there was outcry at that 9500 Euro price-point when MPDL contracting for the Nature titles last month (though in a TA vs list APC), there's objection and outrage all over Twitter today.Â
- Â
- Questions I'm pondering: Will Coalition S accept these as Transformative Journals and in some ways thus "bless" this APC level? What about other consortia out there that have been pushing for an OA agreement for publishing in Nature titles, e.g., UC and other European countries? How many authors will choose Guided but never pay the invoice if they aren't ultimately accepted? Or, will today's upset pass quickly -- pretty much be a blip -- and we'll soon just see this as normal?Â
- Â
- Lisa
- Â
- Â
- ___
- Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
- lisali...@gmail.com
- Â
- --
- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CAKjLim2Ww3POCZCO-3V7z%2BdcsgTthAFfLDzKC4-9oQTS1_O4bg%40mail.gmail.com .
- --
- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CAKjLim1V1wN3FcbzPDZXB5kHQZUWHkb6s-s00fjugvWrWB2WFw%40mail.gmail.com .
- --
- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/00b201d6c369%247be9f180%2473bdd480%24%40nationalscience.org .
- --
- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/BD2A4F99-D12D-4104-BBFC-0E195F4DF623%40craigellachie.us .
- --
- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/00d901d6c374%24e93e5f90%24bbbb1eb0%24%40nationalscience.org .
--
Cheers!
Idowu Adegbilero-Iwari
Scholarly Communications Librarian/
Head, ABUAD Multisystem Hospital Library
Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti
IFLA/OCLC Fellow
+2348034316974
Don't Click
https://twitter.com/adegbilero
https://blograrianinfo.blogspot.com.ng/
First Things
“For We Brought Nothing into this World, and it is certain we can carry Nothing Out!
 And having FOOD and CLOTHING let us be with these Things CONTENT.
But They that will be Rich fall into Temptation and a Snare, and into many Foolish and Hurtful Lusts, which Plunge Men into Destruction…
But You, o man of God, FLEE these THINGS; and follow after RIGHTEOUSNESS…†ÂÂ
---- Holy Bible
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CA%2BRVEaFnKcQ-X81z0rkfDkQiiH8MpfSqQcPV4%3DAoo%2BSKo97P-Q%40mail.gmail.com .
Hi Idowu,
Thanks so much for your post. Your points are well taken---rethinking the culture of communication in academia is the number one “pressure point” identified by your fellow OSIers. Along the way, rethinking measures like the JIF (and everything tangentially related to it---metrics, public or perish, etc.) is also on the table. And this means “reset.”
I think David interprets your advice a little too literally. We do indeed need to hit reset, but to David’s point it’s going to take time and effort for this to produce results----like hitting the crosswalk button a hundred times to make the light turn green faster. I’m taking the liberty of including a link to your January 2020 presentation on “resetting” the scholcomm button in Nigeria--- http://repository.elizadeuniversity.edu.ng/jspui/handle/20.500.12398/661 ---a really nice slide deck that explains this concept in context.
All the best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
1. “Work†as in change the world. This isn’t a world-changing approach, though, so it seems unlikely.
· Plan S doesn’t care about price and is basically sanctioning the cleaving of science communication into haves and have-nots
o Possibly.Â
1. Then we should be worried. Tying into questions 1 and 3, if we develop/sanction approaches that make the access+participation gaps even bigger than now, we’re going to damage research, not help it.
- The funders who support Plan S are going to drop out when they realize how much this is going to cost them
- Unlikely. Doesn't seem like they have to pay this to be in the Coalition. Three funders have already said they aren't paying APCs for any transformative journals at all.Â
- Researchers are going to revolt (where they can do so---probably against national funders first via their elected representatives) when the realize how much this is going to cost them
- What does "revolt" mean? Publish closed as they were already doing? If so, probably. But, that's not much of a revolt? Revolt by refusing the take the grant money? Definitely not.
- If we go to all this trouble and expense to change the world and the end result is that researchers say “meh,†or even worse, “open sucks!,†that’s a revolt---civil disobedience.
§ Nature will fold
§ LOLOLOLOL. No.
1. Matthew Effect: Only the richest and most accomplished researchers will be able to publish in Nature---they may as well put a “stay off my lawn†logo on the front cover. And for a time, the rich will get richer. But eventually the journal will turn into an exclusive and clubby collection of materials that fails to capture the most innovative and exciting changes in science. And then, it will become irrelevant and will either need to open its doors again or history will pass it by.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/7.0.1.0.2.20201126152535.0778cc78%40craigellachie.us.
Hi Idowu,
Thanks so much for your post. Your points are well taken---rethinking the culture of communication in academia is the number one “pressure point” identified by your fellow OSIers. Along the way, rethinking measures like the JIF (and everything tangentially related to it---metrics, public or perish, etc.) is also on the table. And this means “reset.”
I think David interprets your advice a little too literally. We do indeed need to hit reset, but to David’s point it’s going to take time and effort for this to produce results----like hitting the crosswalk button a hundred times to make the light turn green faster. I’m taking the liberty of including a link to your January 2020 presentation on “resetting” the scholcomm button in Nigeria--- http://repository.elizadeuniversity.edu.ng/jspui/handle/20.500.12398/661 ---a really nice slide deck that explains this concept in context.
All the best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
Oh my, not at all. This space is awash with actors and actions thinking about change, pushing for change and making change, both strategic and tactical. We need it all. And with OSI, of course, we have created a new roadmap for change and have been reinforcing this over the past eight months in our policy perspectives, and the one that’s forthcoming. Also, it’s important to note that not all regions are moving at the same pace or on the same road.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/9B88E964-E716-453D-AAD7-1A7167B4CC88%40craigellachie.us.
Oh my, not at all. This space is awash with actors and actions thinking about change, pushing for change and making change, both strategic and tactical. We need it all. And with OSI, of course, we have created a new roadmap for change and have been reinforcing this over the past eight months in our policy perspectives, and the one that's forthcoming. Also, it's important to note that not all regions are moving at the same pace or on the same road.
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2020 1:39 PM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Cc: Idowu Adegbilero <adegbil...@gmail.com>; The Open Scholarship Initiative <osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Today's Nature News
It is not a question of rethinking. Thinking is not change. I see lots of discussion of how things should be but almost no discussion of how to make them that way, Plan S being a singular exception, albeit a tiny one.
In Wojick Tree language this is called a lack of balance. The "How should it be" subtree is enormous while the "How do we get there?" subtree is a dwarf.
David
On Nov 27, 2020, at 2:33 PM, Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

Hi Idowu,
Thanks so much for your post. Your points are well taken---rethinking the culture of communication in academia is the number one “pressure point†identified by your fellow OSIers. Along the way, rethinking measures like the JIF (and everything tangentially related to it---metrics, public or perish, etc.) is also on the table. And this means “reset.â€
I think David interprets your advice a little too literally. We do indeed need to hit reset, but to David’s point it’s going to take time and effort for this to produce results----like hitting the crosswalk button a hundred times to make the light turn green faster. I’m taking the liberty of including a link to your January 2020 presentation on “resetting†the scholcomm button in Nigeria--- http://repository.elizadeuniversity.edu.ng/jspui/handle/20.500.12398/661 ---a really nice slide deck that explains this concept in context.
All the best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<image003.jpg>
From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2020 12:28 PM
To: Idowu Adegbilero < adegbil...@gmail.com>
Cc: The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Today's Nature News
Research communication is a well established global system involving millions of people and billions of dollars a year. One does not just "reset" such things.
David
At 11:19 AM 11/26/2020, Idowu Adegbilero wrote:
- Quite absurd to see Nature throwing this at us.
- For me, unless academics take back the communication of research as a service to their community, commercial publishers will continue to behave in this way. My proposition is that, in addition to teaching and research, scholcomm duties should be part of the services of academia at certain levels of their career. We may thus need to jettison many of the current practices and parlances such as JIF and all, and probably click RESET. Taking advantage of technologies and a sense of duty, time to to reset scholcomm is now.Â
- On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 10:49 PM Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- To argue against myself David, all publishers have noticed Plan S and pretty much all have made allowances for it in their plans for the future---what kinds of products they will offer, how they̢۪ll survive, etc. So Lisa is right in this is sense---Plan S HAS changed the world. But even before Plan S, as you point out, Eric Archambault̢۪s work showed that at 50+% of all new articles are being published in an open format, and that the body of open is growing by about 4% annually. So change was already well underway. The monkey wrench that Plan S has thrown into the gears of progress is telling publishers EXACTLY what counts as progress on open---not listening to what their customers want or innovating change, but making a huge u-turn (and then back again) on solutions like hybrids. This is just policy improvisation---not well thought-out reform, but ideologically driven policy that has created publisher responses that are more defensive than innovative. And in this sense, the policy environment (and maybe the business environment) is now in a worse position, unwinding unanticipated (to some) consequences as well as continuing to search for truly workable solutions. So to pile onto your point, change is not just talk---and at the same time, forcing change without enough discussion is just a terrible idea all around.
- Â
- From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of David Wojick
- Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 2:17 PM
- To: Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org>
- Cc: The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: Re: Today's Nature News
- Â
- I tend to agree with Glenn. Talk of change is not change. If, say, 1000 journals flipped in order to keep their Plan S authors then that is real change. But even that would be small, just a few percent of all the journals. Nor do the so-called transformational agreements change much, because all the subscriptions are still paid for.Â
- Â
- I would say the world has changed in favor of OA, but not because of Plan S.
- Â
- David
- On Nov 25, 2020, at 4:28 PM, Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- 
- Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by “change.†It’s €™s changed the conversation for sure, and kicked up a whole lot of dust, but as far as creating policy for inclusive, workable, lasting change, then no---it’s been a bust---at best a helpful ul exploration of options, but at worst a diversion that has (at least temporarily) sucked the oxygen out of the room for designing lasting and workable change at a global level.
- Â
- From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Lisa Hinchliffe
- Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 12:15 PM
- To: Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org>
- Cc: The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: Re: Today's Nature News
- Â
- Plan S already changed the world.Â
- Â
- On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 1:32 PM Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- Making a Wojick Tree (sort of)…. Lisa, your replies are in rred:
- Plan S won̢۪t work because this price point is ridiculous us
- · What does it mean for Plan S to "work"?Â
- 1. “Work†as in in change the world. This isn’t a world-changing ng approach, though, so it seems unlikely.
- · Plan S doesn’t ¢t care about price and is basically sanctioning the cleaving of science communication into haves and have-nots
- o Possibly.Â
- 1. Then we should be worried. Tying into questions 1 and 3, if we develop/sanction approaches that make the access+participation gaps even bigger than now, we̢۪re going to damage research, not help it. t.
- The funders who support Plan S are going to drop out when they realize how much this is going to cost them
- Unlikely. Doesn't seem like they have to pay this to be in the Coalition. Three funders have already said they aren't paying APCs for any transformative journals at all.Â
- Researchers are going to revolt (where they can do so---probably against national funders first via their elected representatives) when the realize how much this is going to cost them
- What does "revolt" mean? Publish closed as they were already doing? If so, probably. But, that's not much of a revolt? Revolt by refusing the take the grant money? Definitely not.
- If we go to all this trouble and expense to change the world and the end result is that researchers say “meh,†or even worse, se, “open sucks!,†€ that’s a revolt---civil disobedience. e.
- § Nature will fold
- § LOLOLOLOL. No.
- 1. Matthew Effect: Only the richest and most accomplished researchers will be able to publish in Nature---they may as well put a “stay off my lawn†logo on on the front cover. And for a time, the rich will get richer. But eventually the journal will turn into an exclusive and clubby collection of materials that fails to capture the most innovative and exciting changes in science. And then, it will become irrelevant and will either need to open its doors again or history will pass it by.
- § None of the above
- § Maybe.
- § All of the above
- § No.
- Â
- Â
- From: Lisa Hinchliffe <lisali...@gmail.com >
- Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 10:59 AM
- To: Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org>
- Cc: The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: Re: Today's Nature News
- Â
- My off-the-cuff reaction:Â
- What does it mean for Plan S to "work"?Â
- Possibly.Â
- Unlikely. Doesn't seem like they have to pay this to be in the Coalition. Three funders have already said they aren't paying APCs for any transformative journals at all.Â
- What does "revolt" mean? Publish closed as they were already doing? If so, probably. But, that's not much of a revolt? Revolt by refusing the take the grant money? Definitely not.
- LOLOLOLOL. No.
- Maybe.
- No.
- Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
- lisali...@gmail.com
- Â
- Â
- Â
- On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 11:53 AM Glenn Hampson < gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:
- So Lisa, what does this mean then? Has the precedent been established for allowing APCs that are quite comfortable or is this situation an outlier? If it̢۪s precedent, does it it mean that:
- Â
- Plan S won̢۪t work rk because this price point is ridiculous
- Plan S doesn̢۪t care about price and is basically ly sanctioning the cleaving of science communication into haves and have-nots
- The funders who support Plan S are going to drop out when they realize how much this is going to cost them
- Researchers are going to revolt (where they can do so---probably against national funders first via their elected representatives) when the realize how much this is going to cost them
- Nature will fold
- None of the above
- All of the above
- Â
- Â
- Â
- From: osi20...@googlegroups.com < osi20...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Lisa Hinchliffe
- Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 6:22 AM
- To: The Open Scholarship Initiative < osi20...@googlegroups.com>
- Subject: Re: Today's Nature News
- Â
- Well, it didn't take long for me to get my answer on the Coalition. Application accepted ... they are listed:Â https://www.coalition-s.org/plan-s-compliant-transformative-journals/
- Â
- Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
- lisali...@gmail.com
- Â
- On Tue, Nov 24, 2020, 8:18 PM Lisa Hinchliffe <lisali...@gmail.com > wrote:
- May be too heavy a topic for those in the US who are trying to settle into their Thanksgiving week holiday and "I don't want to think about open access funding right now thank you very much Lisa!" but ... in case you are looking for some policy analysis diversion ...Â
- Â
- I'd love to hear thoughts on today's announcement from Nature:
- converting the Nature journals portfolio to hybrid and set a 9500 Euro APC OA option for all their formerly subscription only journals and thenÂ
- piloting with three Nature titles a new Guided OA model where everyone choosing that pathway pays 1/2 APC upon surviving past desk reject and then the second 1/2 of APC if accepted for publication but capping at 4750 Euro so a 50% discount off list APC.Â
- Not unexpectedly given there was outcry at that 9500 Euro price-point when MPDL contracting for the Nature titles last month (though in a TA vs list APC), there's objection and outrage all over Twitter today.Â
- Â
- Questions I'm pondering: Will Coalition S accept these as Transformative Journals and in some ways thus "bless" this APC level? What about other consortia out there that have been pushing for an OA agreement for publishing in Nature titles, e.g., UC and other European countries? How many authors will choose Guided but never pay the invoice if they aren't ultimately accepted? Or, will today's upset pass quickly -- pretty much be a blip -- and we'll soon just see this as normal?Â
- Â
- Lisa
- Â
- Â
- ___
- Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
- lisali...@gmail.com
- Â
- --
- ---
- --
- ---
- --
- ---
- --
- ---
- --
- ---
- --
- Cheers!
- Idowu Adegbilero-Iwari
- Scholarly Communications Librarian/
- Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti
- IFLA/OCLC Fellow
- +2348034316974
- Don't Click
- https://twitter.com/adegbilero
- https://blograrianinfo.blogspot.com.ng/
- First Things
- “For We Brought Nothing into this s World, and it is certain we can carry Nothing Out!
- Â And having FOOD and CLOTHING let us be with these Things CONTENT.
- But They that will be Rich fall into Temptation and a Snare, and into many Foolish and Hurtful Lusts, which Plunge Men into Destruction…
- But You, o man of God, FLEE these THINGS; and follow after RIGHTEOUSNESS…†ÂÂ
- ---- -- Holy Bible
- --
- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/CA%2BRVEaFnKcQ-X81z0rkfDkQiiH8MpfSqQcPV4%3DAoo%2BSKo97P-Q%40mail.gmail.com .
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/7.0.1.0.2.20201126152535.0778cc78%40craigellachie.us .
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/005601d6c4eb%24cbe83600%2463b8a200%24%40nationalscience.org .
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/9B88E964-E716-453D-AAD7-1A7167B4CC88%40craigellachie.us .
Still lots David, including (but not limited to):
o The funders who support Plan S are going to drop out when they realize how much this is going to cost them
§ Unlikely. Doesn't seem like they have to pay this to be in the Coalition. Three funders have already said they aren't paying APCs for any transformative journals at all.Â
o Researchers are going to revolt (where they can do so---probably against national funders first via their elected representatives) when the realize how much this is going to cost them
§ What does "revolt" mean? Publish closed as they were already doing? If so, probably. But, that's not much of a revolt? Revolt by refusing the take the grant money? Definitely not.
1. If we go to all this trouble and expense to change the world and the end result is that researchers say “meh,†or even worse, se, “open sucks!,†€ that’s a revolt---civil disobedience. e.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/osi2016-25/7.0.1.0.2.20201130114001.07277ad0%40craigellachie.us.
Hi David,
I think you and I are talking about different things here----I would be happy to continue this thread off-list. When you look at the overall growth of all kinds of open solutions over the last 20 years---and let’s just look at open access for now---you can’t attribute this growth simply to the emergence of hybrids and low-cost journals from out of nowhere. These changes, and so many more that aren’t represented by output numbers (like changing attitudes, metrics, agreements, etc.), are emerging as part of continued pressure from within many parts of the scholcomm ecosystem. Regarding my top-of-the-head item number 5, this is the emergence of open as a choice for authors (due to more choices being available, which is due the response of publishers, which is due to pressure from open advocates, libraries and funders). The appropriate analogy here is that you can’t, for example, say that the gas mileage of cars has dramatically increased over the last 30 years for no apparent reason; underlying this change has been massive amounts of policy, innovation, marketing, acceptance by the consumer, and so on. This underlying change is fundamental---we can’t just note the mileage increase and say that not a whole lot has changed.
Best,
Glenn