Today's Nature News

25 views
Skip to first unread message

Lisa Hinchliffe

unread,
Nov 24, 2020, 9:18:37 PM11/24/20
to The Open Scholarship Initiative
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 ... 

I'd love to hear thoughts on today's announcement from Nature:
  1. converting the Nature journals portfolio to hybrid and set a 9500 Euro APC OA option for all their formerly subscription only journals and then 
  2. 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. 
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. 

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? 

Lisa


___

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
lisali...@gmail.com



Glenn Hampson

unread,
Nov 25, 2020, 12:35:53 AM11/25/20
to Lisa Hinchliffe, The Open Scholarship Initiative

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.

David Wojick

unread,
Nov 25, 2020, 8:49:22 AM11/25/20
to Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
Sticker shock! But didn't Nature say years ago that this is what their articles cost?

A difficult bet to evaluate. Supposing an 80% peer review rejection rate, there is a 20% chance of saving $4750 (and appearing in Nature) versus an 80% chance of losing $2375. The math is beyond me. It may depend on how sure one is of getting published.

Most of the world's scientists cannot afford this, but there is still the subscription version, for now anyway.

David

On Nov 25, 2020, at 1:35 AM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:



Lisa Hinchliffe

unread,
Nov 25, 2020, 9:21:59 AM11/25/20
to The Open Scholarship Initiative
Well, it didn't take long for me to get my answer on the Coalition. Application accepted ... they are listed: https://www.coalition-s.org/plan-s-compliant-transformative-journals/


Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
lisali...@gmail.com

Glenn Hampson

unread,
Nov 25, 2020, 12:53:48 PM11/25/20
to Lisa Hinchliffe, The Open Scholarship Initiative

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:

 

  1. Plan S won’t work because this price point is ridiculous
  2. Plan S doesn’t care about price and is basically sanctioning the cleaving of science communication into haves and have-nots
  3. The funders who support Plan S are going to drop out when they realize how much this is going to cost them
  4. 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
  5. Nature will fold
  6. None of the above
  7. All of the above

 

 

 

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.

Lisa Hinchliffe

unread,
Nov 25, 2020, 1:59:07 PM11/25/20
to Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
My off-the-cuff reaction: 
  1. What does it mean for Plan S to "work"? 
  2. Possibly. 
  3. 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. 
  4. 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.
  5. LOLOLOLOL. No.
  6. Maybe.
  7. No.

Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe
lisali...@gmail.com




Glenn Hampson

unread,
Nov 25, 2020, 2:32:22 PM11/25/20
to Lisa Hinchliffe, The Open Scholarship Initiative

Making a Wojick Tree (sort of)…. Lisa, your replies are in red:

    1. Plan S won’t work because this price point is ridiculous
      • What does it mean for Plan S to "work"? 
        1. “Work” as in change the world. This isn’t a world-changing approach, though, so it seems unlikely.
    1. Plan S doesn’t care about price and is basically sanctioning the cleaving of science communication into haves and have-nots
      • Possibly
        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.
    1. 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. 
    1. 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, “open sucks!,” that’s a revolt---civil disobedience.
    1. 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.
    2. None of the above
      • Maybe.
    3. All of the above
      • No.

    David Wojick

    unread,
    Nov 25, 2020, 2:47:45 PM11/25/20
    to Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
    Certainly on the way to a Wojick Tree, Glenn. You still need a top statement or question and maybe a level or two of responses to hang these subissues together on. That may be in the prior emails.

    Oh and your branching rate is a mere 1.0 so very thin. (This is how the tree guides reasoning. You can literally see what is lacking in the discourse.)

    David

    On Nov 25, 2020, at 3:32 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

    

    Lisa Hinchliffe

    unread,
    Nov 25, 2020, 3:15:06 PM11/25/20
    to Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
    Plan S already changed the world. 

    Glenn Hampson

    unread,
    Nov 25, 2020, 3:28:11 PM11/25/20
    to Lisa Hinchliffe, The Open Scholarship Initiative

    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.

    Lynn Kamerlin

    unread,
    Nov 25, 2020, 3:32:07 PM11/25/20
    to Lisa Hinchliffe, Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
    This discussion brings very much to mind a comment from Michael Levitt (who has clearly been extremely successful by all metrics) about publishing in the 1970s. Back then, Nature/Science was not actually the place you wanted to publish, the dream was to publish in Scientific American, and that was the Nature of its day. Why? Because it was where you could do color plates, the other publishers didn’t offer that at the time. I am going based on his description of events form his own experience, but it clearly is a reminder of how fickle the world of academic publishing and what the top journals are can be, even if some appear to stay the course for a while.

    -------------------------------------

    Caroline Lynn Kamerlin, PhD, Docent

    Professor of Structural Biology
    Wallenberg Scholar
    Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (FRSC)
    Department of Chemistry - BMC
    Uppsala University
    Phone: +46 (0) 18 471 4423
    Mobile: +46 (0) 70 425 0181










    När du har kontakt med oss på Uppsala universitet med e-post så innebär det att vi behandlar dina personuppgifter. För att läsa mer om hur vi gör det kan du läsa här: http://www.uu.se/om-uu/dataskydd-personuppgifter/

    E-mailing Uppsala University means that we will process your personal data. For more information on how this is performed, please read here: http://www.uu.se/en/about-uu/data-protection-policy

    Biagioli, Mario

    unread,
    Nov 25, 2020, 3:39:53 PM11/25/20
    to Lisa Hinchliffe, Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
    Without derailing the very interesting conversation, I'd like to add a new "branch" to it. 

    It seems to me that Nature's pricing decision (and possible similar decisions by very high JIF venues inspired by Nature) may become mobilized to say that, relatively speaking, predatory journals (or other low-quality venues) dont look so predatory after all...

    My guess is that, beyond whatever creative accounting Nature will use to justify their 9.5K euro APC, what we may be seeing is the plain indexing of APCs to the JIFs.  That is, the financialization of the APC. (And the $100 APC of predatory journals probably makes sense from that point of view).  

    Forget about processing costs.  What you are paying for is the value of the citations you will get!  

    Mario


    Mario Biagioli
    Distinguished Professor, School of Law and Department of Communication, UCLA

    New books: 



    From: osi20...@googlegroups.com <osi20...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Lisa Hinchliffe <lisali...@gmail.com>
    Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 12:14 PM

    Lynn Kamerlin

    unread,
    Nov 25, 2020, 3:43:55 PM11/25/20
    to Biagioli, Mario, Lisa Hinchliffe, Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
    Yes and know, the other way of viewing this is that it’s precisely because of the predatory and dubious journals that journals with an established brand can set their APC so high, because you are paying not just for citations but for a brand. Of course the fact that this will bankrupt many researchers in the process is a big problem…my main fear is that this will not end with NPG and things like the guided OA and now a 9500 EUR APC compared to the prior eye watering 5000 EUR APCs other selective journals were charging will just normalize even higher and higher APC all the time and where NPG leads, other publishers who have a well-established brand will follow, and these things become normalized…

    Lynn

    -------------------------------------

    Caroline Lynn Kamerlin, PhD, Docent

    Professor of Structural Biology
    Wallenberg Scholar
    Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (FRSC)
    Department of Chemistry - BMC
    Uppsala University
    Phone: +46 (0) 18 471 4423
    Mobile: +46 (0) 70 425 0181

    David Wojick

    unread,
    Nov 25, 2020, 3:53:39 PM11/25/20
    to Biagioli, Mario, The Open Scholarship Initiative
    Many of the "predatory" authors are faculty at second tier, developing country schools with no grant money and low salaries. The difference between an APC of $3000 and $10,000 is probably irrelevant.

    David

    On Nov 25, 2020, at 4:39 PM, Biagioli, Mario <biag...@law.ucla.edu> wrote:

    Without derailing the very interesting conversation, I'd like to add a new "branch" to it. 

    David Wojick

    unread,
    Nov 25, 2020, 3:55:49 PM11/25/20
    to Lynn Kamerlin, The Open Scholarship Initiative
    Given that there are tens of thousands of legitimate journals I doubt that the ultra low cost predatory journals have much influence on the top ranked ones. There is too much in between.

    David

    On Nov 25, 2020, at 4:43 PM, Lynn Kamerlin <lynn.k...@kemi.uu.se> wrote:

     Yes and know, the other way of viewing this is that it’s precisely because of the predatory and dubious journals that journals with an established brand can set their APC so high, because you are paying not just for citations but for a brand. Of course the fact that this will bankrupt many researchers in the process is a big problem…my main fear is that this will not end with NPG and things like the guided OA and now a 9500 EUR APC compared to the prior eye watering 5000 EUR APCs other selective journals were charging will just normalize even higher and higher APC all the time and where NPG leads, other publishers who have a well-established brand will follow, and these things become normalized…

    David Wojick

    unread,
    Nov 25, 2020, 4:17:01 PM11/25/20
    to Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
    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. 

    I would say the world has changed in favor of OA, but not because of Plan S.

    David

    On Nov 25, 2020, at 4:28 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

    

    Glenn Hampson

    unread,
    Nov 25, 2020, 4:49:59 PM11/25/20
    to David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative

    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.

    Idowu Adegbilero

    unread,
    Nov 26, 2020, 11:20:16 AM11/26/20
    to Glenn Hampson, David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative
    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. 



    --
    Cheers!

    Idowu Adegbilero-Iwari
    Scholarly Communications Librarian/
    Head, ABUAD Multisystem Hospital Library
    IFLA/OCLC Fellow
    Don't Click


    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

    David Wojick

    unread,
    Nov 26, 2020, 3:28:38 PM11/26/20
    to Idowu Adegbilero, The Open Scholarship Initiative
    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 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
      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
      • 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.
          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, “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.
          • None of the above
            • Maybe.
          • All of the above
            • No.
        • Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 10:59 AM
        • 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


        • 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

        • Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 6:22 AM
        • Subject: Re: Today's Nature News


        • 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.
    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.
    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.
    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.


    --
    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!

    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…†Â 

    ---- 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.

    Glenn Hampson

    unread,
    Nov 27, 2020, 1:33:32 PM11/27/20
    to David Wojick, Idowu Adegbilero, The Open Scholarship Initiative

    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.
          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, “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.

    image003.jpg

    David Wojick

    unread,
    Nov 27, 2020, 3:38:28 PM11/27/20
    to Glenn Hampson, Idowu Adegbilero, The Open Scholarship Initiative
    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.”

     

    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)

    Glenn Hampson

    unread,
    Nov 27, 2020, 5:22:54 PM11/27/20
    to David Wojick, Idowu Adegbilero, The Open Scholarship Initiative

    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.

    David Wojick

    unread,
    Nov 30, 2020, 12:03:51 PM11/30/20
    to Glenn Hampson, Idowu Adegbilero, The Open Scholarship Initiative
    Keep in mind that the topic is the world changing, which is a scale not often addressed. On that scale there may have been a couple of OA changes in the journal subset of scientific communication in the last decade or two.

    First is the hybridization of subscription journals, which makes many journals OA in principle. Second is the rise of the low cost, high acceptance, rapid response "predatory" OA journals, which now account for maybe 10 to 20% of all English language publication. The mega OA journals might make the list but I think they are less than 5% of the journal traffic.

    Taking 5% as a threshold, what else is there on the scale of OA world change? What am I missing?

    David


    At 05:22 PM 11/27/2020, Glenn Hampson wrote:

    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, we’re 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.
          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.

          §  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

        • 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

        • 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 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

        • Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 6:22 AM

        • Subject: Re: Today's Nature News

        • 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/
        • 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…†Â 

          ---- -- 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.


    --
    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.


    --
    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.

    Glenn Hampson

    unread,
    Nov 30, 2020, 12:44:54 PM11/30/20
    to The Open Scholarship Initiative

    Still lots David, including (but not limited to):

    1. The changing attitudes and influence of funders in the open debate
    2. The role of libraries (in successfully advocating change and now negotiating PAR agreements, cancelling subscription services, etc.)
    3. The rise of data---the increasing move toward tying data into publications, toward improving data repositories and working out the myriad issues related to open data
    4. The consolidation of commercial giants, buying up services and companies along with the entire information chain
    5. The slow and steady flip to open (where over 50% of all new articles are now being published in open format)
    6. The influence of Plan S on shifting expectations for what’s coming (right or wrong)
    7. The rise of massively multi-author papers
    8. The rise of China’s influence in publishing trends
    9. OJS and related systems (facilitating the rapid growth of preprints)
    10. Discovering the limits of APC-based change
    11. Experimentation with new peer review systems
    12. And pretty much hundreds of pages of reports more….this is just off the top of my head here. The publishing world is changing and has been changing, not monolithically but regionally and not linearly but in fits and starts. You’re just looking at the tip of the iceberg.

    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.

    David Wojick

    unread,
    Nov 30, 2020, 2:17:42 PM11/30/20
    to Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
    Glenn, do any of these amount to a 5% change in the mechanism of the system? I am not sure that all together do. Re your number 5, what do you mean by flip to open? Do you mean subscription journals that have flipped to open? Surely that is a very small fraction.

    I am all for OA but it is important to understand where we are and what is actually happening to the system you are trying to change. When I do strategic analysis (not planning because this cannot be planned) I like to start with an understanding of the system in question. 

    David

    On Nov 30, 2020, at 1:44 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

    

    Glenn Hampson

    unread,
    Nov 30, 2020, 2:55:09 PM11/30/20
    to David Wojick, The Open Scholarship Initiative

    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

    David Wojick

    unread,
    Nov 30, 2020, 3:11:54 PM11/30/20
    to Glenn Hampson, The Open Scholarship Initiative
    I did not say that not a lot has changed. On the contrary I listed what seem to be the three biggest actual changes. But this, actual change or how to get it, is not an aspect that people wish to discuss. 

    David

    On Nov 30, 2020, at 3:55 PM, Glenn Hampson <gham...@nationalscience.org> wrote:

    
    Reply all
    Reply to author
    Forward
    0 new messages