[Oa-italia] FAIR Open Access Alliance risponde alla lettera dei ricercatori su Plan S

Dom 18 Nov 2018 23:45:03 CET

Grazie Maria,

ecco il link al pdf nel sito di FairOpenAccessAlliance: 
https://www.fairopenaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FOAA-reaction-to-Open-Letter.pdf

Ottima risposta, piena di argomentazioni che condivido appieno.

Ale

On 18/11/18 10:14, Maria Cassella wrote:
> 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.
> Saluti
> Maria Cassella
>
> /We write to provide a counter view to the recent open letter (“Plan 
> S: Too Far, Too/
>
> /Risky”), 
> [_https://sites.google.com/view/plansopenletter/open-letter_] partly 
> based on our FOAA recommendations for the implementation of Plan S. /
>
> /[_https://www.fairopenaccess.org/2018/10/21/foaa-recommendations-on-the-implementation-of-plan-s/_] 
> /
>
> /We are glad to note that the researchers who have signed the open 
> letter support open/
>
> /access as their very first principle. However, the letter itself goes 
> on to make a number //of highly problematic and logically fallacious 
> statements with which we strongly disagree //and here contest./
>
> /More broadly, the letter fails to provide any solution to address the 
> problematic situation //academia has maneuvered itself into with 
> regards to scholarly publishing. As it stands, //the open letter is a 
> set of demands on the funders, without any responsibility assumed //by 
> the researchers themselves for the ongoing serials crisis, nor for 
> providing solutions./
>
> /In this document we review the items in the open letter systematically./
>
> */1. Hybrid (society) journals/*//
>
> /The Letter states: “The complete ban on hybrid (society) journals of 
> high quality is a big //problem, especially for chemistry.” This 
> statement is not correct. First of all, Plan S does //not ban hybrid 
> journals, it simply aims at persuading funders to stop paying APCs to 
> //them as these titles have proved an ineffectual mechanism for a 
> transition to OA./
>
> /Beyond the fact that it is unclear why chemistry thinks itself 
> exceptional here, Robert-Jan //Smits has explained on several 
> occasions that Plan S will allow researchers to publish in //hybrid 
> journals íf the article is published simultaneously in a repository or 
> archive //*without an embargo and under a CC BY license*. In the 
> Wellcome Trust’s //implementation of Plan S, the version that must be 
> available is the AAM (author’s //accepted manuscript). Several 
> publishers, such as Emerald and SAGE, //already offer //zero-embargo 
> green OA. In addition, while coalition funders will not pay APCs for 
> hybrid //journals, they will not prevent authors from finding research 
> funding from other sources. ///
>
> /Contrary to the claims of the Letter, Plan S takes into account the 
> full landscape of open //access, as clearly acknowledged in Principle 
> 3: “In case such high quality Open Access //journals or platforms do 
> not yet exist, the Funders will, in a coordinated way, provide 
> //incentives to establish and support them when appropriate; support 
> will also be provided //for Open Access infrastructures where 
> necessary;” and Principle 8 “The importance of //open archives and 
> repositories for hosting research outputs is acknowledged because of 
> //their long-term archiving function and their potential for editorial 
> innovation;".///
>
> /The open letter claims that researchers (at least in chemistry) 
> “won’t even be able to/
>
> /legally read the most important (society) journals.” This is 
> nonsense. This claim implies/
>
> /that researchers will cease to have legal access to these journals 
> through subscriptions./
>
> /If this were the case, it is very unclear how Plan S could be held 
> responsible. The intent/
>
> /of Plan S is that journals flip to open access which would mean they 
> were legally/
>
> /accessible to everyone. However, if as seems to be claimed in the 
> letter, libraries were/
>
> /to cancel subscriptions, this would not be in response to Plan S but 
> due to the/
>
> /unsustainability of ever increasing subscription costs. The letter 
> goes on in the second/
>
> /point to acknowledge the issue with exploding costs to subscriptions 
> without offering any/
>
> /solutions to the problem. Furthermore, the authors assume without 
> argument or/
>
> /evidence that all journals (at least in chemistry) “with a valuable 
> and rigorous peer-/
>
> /review system of high quality” will either fold or fail to adapt.///
>
> /The open letter also assumes that Plan S will lead to the death of 
> learned societies./
>
> /Indeed, learned societies that publish academic journals sometimes 
> derive considerable/
>
> /profits or surpluses from the subscription system, and have benefited 
> substantially in the/
>
> /past decade from funder requirements to make research open access 
> under the hybrid/
>
> /system. As an example, the American Chemical Society has a highly 
> complex fee structure /
>
> /for article processing charges, 
> [_https://pubs.acs.org/pb-assets/documents/4authors/ACS_SalesChart.pdf_ ] 
> /
>
> / taking full advantage of the situation, where a funded non-member 
> from an institution that does not subscribe /
>
> /must pay $4000 for immediate access (a requirement of the funding 
> paying the APC) and a surcharge of/
>
> /$1000 for CC BY (again a requirement of the funding paying the APC), 
> a total of $5,000/
>
> /– when the average APC is approximately $2700. These profits or 
> surpluses are often/
>
> /used to support research activities. As a result, learned societies 
> have a financial/
>
> /interest in maintaining the subscription, and specifically the 
> hybrid, system. It is true that/
>
> /there are large differences between research fields here, in that 
> chemistry derives more/
>
> /money from the (hybrid) subscription system than other fields./
>
> //
>
> /A more productive approach to the conversation would be to focus on 
> alternatives to/
>
> /subscriptions that pay for society income rather than attacking Plan 
> S. For it is, indeed,/
>
> /bizarre that library budgets should bear the brunt of funding 
> disciplinary activities. That/
>
> /said, an alternative income for scientific societies is possible 
> under a publication-fee/
>
> /model as well. For example, the publication fee is capped under Plan 
> S, which allows for/
>
> /a difference between the real cost of publishing and the cap paid by 
> the funders which/
>
> /could be reserved for the learned society. This solution does require 
> that the cost of/
>
> /publishing is made completely transparent by publishers (societies in 
> this instance)./
>
> //
>
> /FOAA recommended cost transparency as a crucial factor for the 
> implementation of/
>
> /Plan S. We believe publishers should be required to provide the 
> actual breakdown of/
>
> /costs contained in the publication fee, and make this information 
> publicly available. An/
>
> /example of how this works in practice is the 2016 release by eLife of 
> their costs to/
>
> /publish. 
> [_https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/a058ec77/what-it-costs-to-publish_] 
> /
>
> /Without this transparency the cap will be established as a new 
> price-point that/
>
> /will allow publishers to renegotiate it every few years, and allow 
> those with actual costs/
>
> /below the cap to raise their costs to meet the cap. A subset of 
> publishers have already/
>
> /agreed to the FOAA cost transparency proposal in the Transparent 
> Transition to Open/
>
> /Access (TTOA consortium)./
>
> //
>
> */2. A transition from hybrid to full Open Access/*
>
> *//*
>
> /We further recommend that a policy be defined to help publishers and 
> Editors-in-Chief of/
>
> /hybrid journals to transition to full open access within a 3-4 year 
> period, reporting on/
>
> /progress every year. The transition of hybrid journals to non-hybrid 
> or full Open Access/
>
> /journals will need an infrastructure in line with Principle 3 of Plan 
> S: FOAA has taken an/
>
> /initiative to help journals transition to open access in the 
> aftermath of Plan S with its/
>
> /TTOA platform. /
>
> /[_https://www.fairopenaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Public-statement-TTOA-consortium-30may18-def.pdf_]/
>
> //
>
> /Nobody wishes to ‘ban’ society journals: the request here is to use 
> imaginative ways to/
>
> /make the transition of those journals to an open access model, which 
> would do much/
>
> /more for the societies’ disciplinary advocacy work. A number of 
> journals have already/
>
> /gone that route, and have – in a very short time - been able to fully 
> maintain their/
>
> /readership and reputation in their communities (see the highly 
> successful transition of/
>
> /the editorial board of Elsevier subscription journal Lingua to Fair 
> Open Access Glossa,/
>
> /and that of Springer’s Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics to 
> Algebraic Combinatorics)./
>
> /These journals have shown that the scientific reputation of a journal 
> lies with its editorial/
>
> /team, not with the name or with the publisher. If editors in 
> linguistics and mathematics/
>
> /can flip their prestigious journals to open access, at no cost to 
> their reputation, editors in/
>
> /other fields should be able to do so as well. A transition to full 
> open access is the best/
>
> /thing editors of prestigious journals can do to help establish the 
> reputation of younger/
>
> /scientists with access to cOALition S funds./
>
> //
>
> /Further, the authors of the Letter claim that they “expect that a 
> large part of the world will/
>
> /not (fully) tie in with Plan S”. In the meantime, important funders 
> such as the Wellcome/
>
> /Trust and the Gates Foundation have already joined Plan S. For Plan S 
> to succeed, it is/
>
> /essential that not only funders take a principled stand, but that 
> editors of hybrid journals/
>
> /join forces to urge their publishers to flip the journals to full 
> open access./
>
> //
>
> */3. The cost of publication/*//
>
> /The signatories of the letter say they understand concerns about 
> exploding costs of/
>
> /journal subscriptions. But they also state that “with its strong 
> focus on the Gold OA/
>
> /publication model, in which researchers pay high APCs for each 
> publication, the total/
>
> /costs of scholarly dissemination will likely rise instead of reduce 
> under Plan S”./
>
> /However, Plan S does not mention APCs nor Gold OA. It refers only to 
> Publication Fees:/
>
> /this is a much broader term that encompasses multiple options. One 
> example is the/
>
> /SCOAP3 consortium where libraries pay a ‘subscription’ to journals 
> that are openly/
>
> /accessible. This approach opens the possibility that no-fee journals 
> can also be/
>
> /compensated for their efforts. Thus, Plan S provides funding for all 
> publication venues/
>
> /with the exception of hybrid journals. Furthermore, APCs need not 
> make the total costs/
>
> /of dissemination rise further: the average cost to the international 
> community of a/
>
> /research article under the current subscription system is currently 
> about $3800. /
>
> /[_https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2148961_7/component/file_2149096/content_] 
> Even a/
>
> /generous cap of $2000 per article will almost halve that cost. Plan S 
> clearly states that it/
>
> /will cap open access publication fees, a fact that the signatories of 
> the Letter ignore./
>
> /There is no reason that researchers would be confronted with high 
> APCs if editors are/
>
> /incentivized to transition their high-quality journals to open access 
> with a standardized/
>
> /publication fee paid for every article./
>
> //
>
> */4. Academic freedom/*//
>
> /The Open Letter states that ‘Plan S is a serious violation of 
> academic freedom’. Yet the/
>
> /claim that academic freedom is being violated is overstated. At its 
> heart, academic/
>
> /freedom concerns the freedom of inquiry and the freedom to 
> communicate research/
>
> /results and ideas without reprisal. In that sense, Plan S actually 
> guarantees a greater/
>
> /academic freedom than that afforded by the authors of the Letter: 
> open access will mean/
>
> /that the greatest number of readers will have access to published 
> ideas, rather than/
>
> /debate being hampered by a paywall. It is highly debatable whether 
> academic freedom/
>
> /should extend to the freedom of researchers to choose their 
> publication venue: an/
>
> /author’s freedom to publish wherever they want ends where the 
> reader’s right to freely/
>
> /access research starts. In actual fact, researchers never enjoy 
> complete freedom of/
>
> /publication, as papers are often rejected, and subsequently published 
> in a journal that is/
>
> /not the journal of original choice. Funders, by contrast, have the 
> right to determine how,/
>
> /or at least under what access terms, the research they fund should be 
> published: he/
>
> /who pays the piper calls the tune. Nobody is forcing researchers to 
> accept grants from/
>
> /these Funders if they truly believe their choice of publication venue 
> is being restricted by/
>
> /them./
>
> //
>
> /In conclusion, the Letter offers plenty of unargued criticism, but no 
> viable alternative to/
>
> /the currently unsustainable academic publishing landscape. Worse, it 
> fails to grasp the/
>
> /opportunities offered by Plan S to do so./
>
> //
>
> /Jos Baeten/
>
> /Martin Paul Eve/
>
> /Saskia de Vries/
>
> /Danny Kingsley/
>
> /Johan Rooryck/
>
>
> //
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OA-Italia mailing list
> OA-Italia a openarchives.it
> https://liste.cineca.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/oa-italia
> PLEIADI: http://www.openarchives.it/pleiadi/
-- 
-- 

Alessandro Sarretta

skype/twitter: alesarrett
Web: ilsarrett.wordpress.com <http://ilsarrett.wordpress.com>

Research information:

  * Google scholar profile
    <http://scholar.google.it/citations?user=IsyXargAAAAJ&hl=it>
  * ORCID <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1475-8686>
  * Research Gate <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alessandro_Sarretta>
  * Impactstory <https://impactstory.org/AlessandroSarretta>

-------------- parte successiva --------------
Un allegato HTML è stato rimosso...
URL: <http://liste.cineca.it/pipermail/oa-italia/attachments/20181118/6396ae1c/attachment-0001.html>