<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Grazie Maria,</p>
<p>ecco il link al pdf nel sito di FairOpenAccessAlliance:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.fairopenaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FOAA-reaction-to-Open-Letter.pdf">https://www.fairopenaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FOAA-reaction-to-Open-Letter.pdf</a></p>
<p>Ottima risposta, piena di argomentazioni che condivido appieno.</p>
<p>Ale<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/11/18 10:14, Maria Cassella
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACOickQqsxLz1Jv7mAi3XbqYBRTWALJHweJr29CwVUP0tTNptA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">La FAIR Open Access Alliance risponde alle critiche
dei ricercatori su Plan S. La lettera non sembra ancora essere
disponibile su web. La copio ed incollo integralmente.
<div>Saluti</div>
<div>Maria Cassella<br>
<div>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><i>We
write to provide a counter view to the recent open
letter (“Plan S: Too Far, Too</i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><i><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">Risky”), [</span><u><a
href="https://sites.google.com/view/plansopenletter/open-letter"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://sites.google.com/view/plansopenletter/open-letter</a></u><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">] partly
based on our FOAA recommendations for the
implementation of Plan S. </span></i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><i><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">[</span><u><a
href="https://www.fairopenaccess.org/2018/10/21/foaa-recommendations-on-the-implementation-of-plan-s/"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.fairopenaccess.org/2018/10/21/foaa-recommendations-on-the-implementation-of-plan-s/</a></u><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">] </span></i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><i><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">We are
glad to note that the researchers who have signed the
open letter support open</span></i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>access
as their very first principle. However, the letter
itself goes on to make a number </i></span><i>of
highly problematic and logically fallacious statements
with which we strongly disagree </i><i>and here contest.</i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>More
broadly, the letter fails to provide any solution to
address the problematic situation </i></span><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>academia
has maneuvered itself into with regards to scholarly
publishing. As it stands, </i></span><i>the open
letter is a set of demands on the funders, without any
responsibility assumed </i><i>by the researchers
themselves for the ongoing serials crisis, nor for
providing solutions.</i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>In this
document we review the items in the open letter
systematically.</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><strong><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm6"><i>1.
Hybrid (society) journals</i></span></strong><i> </i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>The
Letter states: “The complete ban on hybrid (society)
journals of high quality is a big </i></span><i>problem,
especially for chemistry.” This statement is not
correct. First of all, Plan S does </i><i>not ban hybrid
journals, it simply aims at persuading funders to stop
paying APCs to </i><i>them as these titles have proved
an ineffectual mechanism for a transition to OA.</i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>Beyond
the fact that it is unclear why chemistry thinks
itself exceptional here, Robert-Jan </i></span><i>Smits
has explained on several occasions that Plan S will
allow researchers to publish in </i><i>hybrid journals
íf the article is published simultaneously in a
repository or archive </i><i><strong><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm6">without
an embargo and under a CC BY license</span></strong><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">. In the
Wellcome Trust’s </span></i><i>implementation of Plan
S, the version that must be available is the AAM
(author’s </i><i>accepted manuscript). Several
publishers, such as Emerald and SAGE, </i><i>already
offer </i><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>zero-embargo
green OA. In addition, while coalition funders will
not pay APCs for hybrid </i></span><i>journals, they
will not prevent authors from finding research funding
from other sources. </i><i> </i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>Contrary
to the claims of the Letter, Plan S takes into account
the full landscape of open </i></span><i>access, as
clearly acknowledged in Principle 3: “In case such high
quality Open Access </i><i>journals or platforms do not
yet exist, the Funders will, in a coordinated way,
provide </i><i>incentives to establish and support them
when appropriate; support will also be provided </i><i>for
Open Access infrastructures where necessary;” and
Principle 8 “The importance of </i><i>open archives and
repositories for hosting research outputs is
acknowledged because of </i><i>their long-term archiving
function and their potential for editorial innovation;".</i><i> </i></p>
<div class="gmail-gs" style="margin:0px;padding:0px 0px
20px;width:684.8px;font-family:Roboto,RobotoDraft,Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:medium">
<div class="gmail-">
<div id="gmail-:mv" class="gmail-ii gmail-gt"
style="font-size:12.8px;direction:ltr;margin:8px 0px
0px;padding:0px">
<div id="gmail-:mu" class="gmail-a3s gmail-aXjCH"
tabindex="-1"
style="overflow:hidden;font-variant-numeric:normal;font-variant-east-asian:normal;font-stretch:normal;font-size:small;line-height:1.5;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div style="direction:ltr">
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>The
open letter claims that researchers (at
least in chemistry) “won’t even be able
to</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>legally
read the most important (society)
journals.” This is nonsense. This claim
implies</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>that
researchers will cease to have legal
access to these journals through
subscriptions.</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>If this
were the case, it is very unclear how
Plan S could be held responsible. The
intent</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>of Plan
S is that journals flip to open access
which would mean they were legally</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>accessible
to everyone. However, if as seems to be
claimed in the letter, libraries were</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>to
cancel subscriptions, this would not be
in response to Plan S but due to the</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>unsustainability
of ever increasing subscription costs.
The letter goes on in the second</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>point
to acknowledge the issue with exploding
costs to subscriptions without offering
any</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>solutions
to the problem. Furthermore, the authors
assume without argument or</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>evidence
that all journals (at least in
chemistry) “with a valuable and rigorous
peer-</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>review
system of high quality” will either fold
or fail to adapt.</i></span><i> </i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>The
open letter also assumes that Plan S
will lead to the death of learned
societies.</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>Indeed,
learned societies that publish academic
journals sometimes derive considerable</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>profits
or surpluses from the subscription
system, and have benefited substantially
in the</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>past
decade from funder requirements to make
research open access under the hybrid</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><i><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">system. As
an example, the American Chemical
Society has a highly complex fee </span><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">structure </span></i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><i><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">for
article processing charges, [</span><u><a
href="https://pubs.acs.org/pb-assets/documents/4authors/ACS_SalesChart.pdf"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://pubs.acs.org/pb-assets/documents/4authors/ACS_SalesChart.pdf</a></u><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"> ] </span></i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i> taking
full advantage of the situation, where a
funded non-member from an institution
that does not subscribe </i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>must
pay $4000 for immediate access (a
requirement of the funding paying the
APC) and a surcharge of</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>$1000
for CC BY (again a requirement of the
funding paying the APC), a total of
$5,000</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>– when
the average APC is approximately $2700.
These profits or surpluses are often</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>used to
support research activities. As a
result, learned societies have a
financial</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>interest
in maintaining the subscription, and
specifically the hybrid, system. It is
true that</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>there
are large differences between research
fields here, in that chemistry derives
more</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>money
from the (hybrid) subscription system
than other fields.</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i> </i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>A more
productive approach to the conversation
would be to focus on alternatives to</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>subscriptions
that pay for society income rather than
attacking Plan S. For it is, indeed,</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>bizarre
that library budgets should bear the
brunt of funding disciplinary
activities. That</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>said,
an alternative income for scientific
societies is possible under a
publication-fee</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>model
as well. For example, the publication
fee is capped under Plan S, which allows
for</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>a
difference between the real cost of
publishing and the cap paid by the
funders which</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>could
be reserved for the learned society.
This solution does require that the cost
of</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>publishing
is made completely transparent by
publishers (societies in this instance).</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i> </i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>FOAA
recommended cost transparency as a
crucial factor for the implementation of</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>Plan S.
We believe publishers should be required
to provide the actual breakdown of</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>costs
contained in the publication fee, and
make this information publicly
available. An</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>example
of how this works in practice is the
2016 release by eLife of their costs to</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><i><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">publish. [</span><u><a
href="https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/a058ec77/what-it-costs-to-publish"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/a058ec77/what-it-costs-to-publish</a></u><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">] </span></i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><i><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">Without
this transparency the cap will be
established as a new price-point that</span></i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>will
allow publishers to renegotiate it every
few years, and allow those with actual
costs</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>below
the cap to raise their costs to meet the
cap. A subset of publishers have already</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>agreed
to the FOAA cost transparency proposal
in the Transparent Transition to Open</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>Access
(TTOA consortium).</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i> </i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><strong><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm6"><i>2. A
transition from hybrid to full Open
Access</i></span></strong></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><strong><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm6"><i> </i></span></strong></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>We
further recommend that a policy be
defined to help publishers and
Editors-in-Chief of</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>hybrid
journals to transition to full open
access within a 3-4 year period,
reporting on</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>progress
every year. The transition of hybrid
journals to non-hybrid or full Open
Access</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>journals
will need an infrastructure in line with
Principle 3 of Plan S: FOAA has taken an</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>initiative
to help journals transition to open
access in the aftermath of Plan S with
its</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><i><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">TTOA
platform. </span></i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><i><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">[</span><u><a
href="https://www.fairopenaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Public-statement-TTOA-consortium-30may18-def.pdf"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.fairopenaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Public-statement-TTOA-consortium-30may18-def.pdf</a></u><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">]</span></i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i> </i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>Nobody
wishes to ‘ban’ society journals: the
request here is to use imaginative ways
to</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>make
the transition of those journals to an
open access model, which would do much</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>more
for the societies’ disciplinary advocacy
work. A number of journals have already</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>gone
that route, and have – in a very short
time - been able to fully maintain their</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>readership
and reputation in their communities (see
the highly successful transition of</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>the
editorial board of Elsevier subscription
journal Lingua to Fair Open Access
Glossa,</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>and
that of Springer’s Journal of Algebraic
Combinatorics to Algebraic
Combinatorics).</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>These
journals have shown that the scientific
reputation of a journal lies with its
editorial</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>team,
not with the name or with the publisher.
If editors in linguistics and
mathematics</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>can
flip their prestigious journals to open
access, at no cost to their reputation,
editors in</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>other
fields should be able to do so as well.
A transition to full open access is the
best</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>thing
editors of prestigious journals can do
to help establish the reputation of
younger</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>scientists
with access to cOALition S funds.</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i> </i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>Further,
the authors of the Letter claim that
they “expect that a large part of the
world will</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>not
(fully) tie in with Plan S”. In the
meantime, important funders such as the
Wellcome</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>Trust
and the Gates Foundation have already
joined Plan S. For Plan S to succeed, it
is</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>essential
that not only funders take a principled
stand, but that editors of hybrid
journals</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>join
forces to urge their publishers to flip
the journals to full open access.</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i> </i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><strong><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm6"><i>3. The
cost of publication</i></span></strong><i> </i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>The
signatories of the letter say they
understand concerns about exploding
costs of</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>journal
subscriptions. But they also state that
“with its strong focus on the Gold OA</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>publication
model, in which researchers pay high
APCs for each publication, the total</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>costs
of scholarly dissemination will likely
rise instead of reduce under Plan S”.</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>However,
Plan S does not mention APCs nor Gold
OA. It refers only to Publication Fees:</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>this is
a much broader term that encompasses
multiple options. One example is the</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>SCOAP3
consortium where libraries pay a
‘subscription’ to journals that are
openly</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>accessible.
This approach opens the possibility that
no-fee journals can also be</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>compensated
for their efforts. Thus, Plan S provides
funding for all publication venues</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>with
the exception of hybrid journals.
Furthermore, APCs need not make the
total costs</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>of
dissemination rise further: the average
cost to the international community of a</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><i><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">research
article under the current subscription
system is currently about $3800. </span></i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><i><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">[</span><u><a
href="https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2148961_7/component/file_2149096/content"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2148961_7/component/file_2149096/content</a></u><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7">] Even a</span></i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>generous
cap of $2000 per article will almost
halve that cost. Plan S clearly states
that it</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>will
cap open access publication fees, a fact
that the signatories of the Letter
ignore.</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>There
is no reason that researchers would be
confronted with high APCs if editors are</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>incentivized
to transition their high-quality
journals to open access with a
standardized</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>publication
fee paid for every article.</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i> </i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><strong><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm6"><i>4.
Academic freedom</i></span></strong><i> </i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>The
Open Letter states that ‘Plan S is a
serious violation of academic freedom’.
Yet the</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>claim
that academic freedom is being violated
is overstated. At its heart, academic</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>freedom
concerns the freedom of inquiry and the
freedom to communicate research</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>results
and ideas without reprisal. In that
sense, Plan S actually guarantees a
greater</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>academic
freedom than that afforded by the
authors of the Letter: open access will
mean</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>that
the greatest number of readers will have
access to published ideas, rather than</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>debate
being hampered by a paywall. It is
highly debatable whether academic
freedom</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>should
extend to the freedom of researchers to
choose their publication venue: an</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>author’s
freedom to publish wherever they want
ends where the reader’s right to freely</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>access
research starts. In actual fact,
researchers never enjoy complete freedom
of</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>publication,
as papers are often rejected, and
subsequently published in a journal that
is</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>not the
journal of original choice. Funders, by
contrast, have the right to determine
how,</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>or at
least under what access terms, the
research they fund should be published:
he</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>who
pays the piper calls the tune. Nobody is
forcing researchers to accept grants
from</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>these
Funders if they truly believe their
choice of publication venue is being
restricted by</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>them.</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i> </i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>In
conclusion, the Letter offers plenty of
unargued criticism, but no viable
alternative to</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>the
currently unsustainable academic
publishing landscape. Worse, it fails to
grasp the</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>opportunities
offered by Plan S to do so.</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><i> </i></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>Jos
Baeten</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>Martin
Paul Eve</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>Saskia
de Vries</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>Danny
Kingsley</i></span></p>
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i>Johan
Rooryck</i></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline">
<p
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520Normal"><span
class="gmail-m_-1082194804298239850m_-5143128391719146520tm7"><i> </i></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
OA-Italia mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OA-Italia@openarchives.it">OA-Italia@openarchives.it</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://liste.cineca.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/oa-italia">https://liste.cineca.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/oa-italia</a>
PLEIADI: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.openarchives.it/pleiadi/">http://www.openarchives.it/pleiadi/</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<font size="2" face="courier,verdana,arial,sans-serif"
color="grey">
--
<p>Alessandro Sarretta</p>
<p>
skype/twitter: alesarrett<br>
Web: <a href="http://ilsarrett.wordpress.com">ilsarrett.wordpress.com</a>
</p>
<p>Research information:<br>
</p>
<ul>
<li><a
href="http://scholar.google.it/citations?user=IsyXargAAAAJ&hl=it">Google
scholar profile</a></li>
<li><a href="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1475-8686">ORCID</a></li>
<li><a
href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alessandro_Sarretta">Research
Gate</a></li>
<li><a href="https://impactstory.org/AlessandroSarretta">Impactstory</a></li>
<!-- <li><a href="https://impactstory.org/AlessandroSarretta"><img src="https://impactstory.org/logo/small" width="80" /></a></li> -->
</ul>
</font>
</div>
</body>
</html>