Plan S Journal Comparison Service: open for publishers to register and deposit price and service data | Plan S

cOAlition S is excited to release today the Journal Comparison Service (JCS), a secure, free and long-anticipated digital service, that aims to shed light on publishing fees and services.

Starting from today, publishers can register with the JCS publisher portal. After signing a service agreement, publishers can share information, at journal level, highlighting the services they provide and the prices they charge in line with one of the Plan S approved price and service transparency frameworks. These data are then made available to librarians via a secure online system.  Examples of data that will be made available through the service include information about the publication frequency, the peer review process, times from submission to acceptance, the range of list prices for APCs, subscription prices, and how the price is allocated over a defined set of services.

 

An Open-Publishing Response to the COVID-19 Infodemic – PMC

Abstract:  The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed the rapid dissemination of papers and preprints investigating the disease and its associated virus, SARS-CoV-2. The multifaceted nature of COVID-19 demands a multidisciplinary approach, but the urgency of the crisis combined with the need for social distancing measures present unique challenges to collaborative science. We applied a massive online open publishing approach to this problem using Manubot. Through GitHub, collaborators summarized and critiqued COVID-19 literature, creating a review manuscript. Manubot automatically compiled citation information for referenced preprints, journal publications, websites, and clinical trials. Continuous integration workflows retrieved up-to-date data from online sources nightly, regenerating some of the manuscript’s figures and statistics. Manubot rendered the manuscript into PDF, HTML, LaTeX, and DOCX outputs, immediately updating the version available online upon the integration of new content. Through this effort, we organized over 50 scientists from a range of backgrounds who evaluated over 1,500 sources and developed seven literature reviews. While many efforts from the computational community have focused on mining COVID-19 literature, our project illustrates the power of open publishing to organize both technical and non-technical scientists to aggregate and disseminate information in response to an evolving crisis.

Seeding a Community of FORESTers | Educopia Institute

“How well do your policies and practices align with your values? And how well do your vendors’ and partners’ policies and practices align with your values?

Do you know? Would it change your investment choices if you did? 

We believe that if there were clearer ways to evidence and assess actions against values, it could.

The Next Generation Library Publishing (NGLP) team is excited to announce the release of the FOREST Framework for Values-Driven Scholarly Communication. This framework has been created to help scholarly communication organizations and communities to demonstrate, evaluate, and improve their alignment over time with six key values:  

Financial and Organizational Sustainability

Openness

Representative Governance

Equity, Accessibility, and Anti-Oppression

Sharing of Knowledge

Transparency …”

“Transformative” Agreement Bingo | Brianne Selman

“Big Deal for APCs – Can’t unbundle/ researcher expectations

Fees are not transparent/ proportionate to work done

Convoluted models & management (especially w/ “pretansformative”)

Encourages and increases hybrid journals

Global rise in OA has been Green or Diamond

Can’t afford for every publisher

Adds publishing costs to Library budgets

Too expensive to do for smaller publishers

Where is the “Transformation”?

Even Sweden is out

Only an option for richer institutions/ countries

Shifts inequity to authors

PAY TO PUBLISH (FREE spot)

Contributes to APC hyperinflation

Makes OA the prestige option / incentives exclusion

May promote publishers w/ TAs over those without

Further locks in prestige for those who can pay

Locks in increasing profit margins

Encourages further market consolidation and increases dependency

Further redistribution of public money to private entities

Leads to an erosion of varied publishing methods

Pushes out diamond OA publishers

Publishing governed by shareholders, not scholars

Investing in unethical data companies

Seize the means of production”

 

Critique of “Transformative” Reasons: “T”As and Their Discontents | Brianne Selman @ Library Publishing Forum, 18 May 2022

Presentation slides by Brianne Selman. Session description: “This session will summarize some of the major categories of the critiques of “transformative” agreements. Perspectives that critique negotiation approaches, the continued bundling of costs into large agreements, market concentrations, decline in scholarly standards, analysis of whether OA goals are even being met by TAs, as well as major equity and diversity concerns will be summarized and discussed.”

Open Access Books: do we need a Plan S moment? – Digital Science

To judge from the progress of Open Access (OA) journal articles, you could be mistaken for thinking OA was the new paradigm for all research: a swift look at the charts below tells you everything you need to know.

According to Unpaywall and Dimensions, one by one the disciplines have tipped from majority-closed to majority-open. Life Sciences was the first to tip in 2013; Medical and Health Sciences followed in 2016; then the Social Sciences and Physical and Mathematical Sciences in 2017. The Humanities joined the majority open in 2020; and Engineering and Technology were at parity in 2021.

So what of books? While we can say with confidence that rates of OA publishing for both monographs and collected works have doubled over the last 10 years, the proportion of OA books remains very low, barely troubling the dominance of the traditional pay model. It’s possible to see a small increase in the last two years – which could be a consequence of more publishers making books ‘freely available’ during COVID (but, lacking a CC- licence not matching the formal status of being ‘Open Access’). Whether or not this trend continues, in a post-pandemic world, is a question that we’ll need to return to in 2024…

 

Open Access Survey in Greece: Status Quo, Surprising Findings and Starting Points

What is the state of Open Access in Greece? What are the biggest obstacles to Open Access publishing? And how much do researchers actually know about the various ways to publish Open Access? A nationwide survey with 500 researchers of different ages, from different disciplines and with different levels of professional experience addressed these questions.

How the Open Book Collective works | Community-led Open Publication Infrastructures for Monographs (COPIM)

by Livy Onalee Snyder and Joe Deville

The Open Book Collective (OBC) is a non-profit membership organization that brings together Open Access (OA) publishers, service providers, librarians, and other supporters to collectively bring about a fairer, more sustainable model of open book publishing. 

Through the OBC’s online platform, publishers and service providers offer individual and collective membership packages which libraries and other potential supporters can pay to join.

[…]

 

Diversity, sustainability and quality must be the hallmarks of academic publishing in Europe – The Guild

“Ahead of the June Competitiveness Council, where the ministers will be invited to adopt conclusions on research assessment and implementation of Open Science policies, The Guild urges the member states to ensure that Open Access serves science, not publishers.

While research excellence requires free flow of knowledge, some Open Access strategies and models increase the financial burden on research institutions. Article Processing Charges (APCs), used by some of the Open Access journals, exacerbate the unsustainable situation of journal spending in university libraries and create unequal access to knowledge. Greater transparency on the publication costs for Open Access journals, and fair and transparent contractual arrangements with publishers are crucial for monitoring the proper use of public research funding.

It is important to develop alternative and sustainable non-APC Open Access models. The Guild calls for the member states to support the development and uptake of Diamond Open Access journals and platforms which consist often of community-driven, and academic-led and owned publishing initiatives. Unlike other Open Access models, Diamond Open Access journals and platforms do not charge any fees from the authors or readers. Thus, they can further empower researchers to disseminate their research results, ensuring bibliodiversity and vital academic publishing….”

Diversity, sustainability and quality must be the hallmarks of academic publishing in Europe – The Guild

“Ahead of the June Competitiveness Council, where the ministers will be invited to adopt conclusions on research assessment and implementation of Open Science policies, The Guild urges the member states to ensure that Open Access serves science, not publishers.

While research excellence requires free flow of knowledge, some Open Access strategies and models increase the financial burden on research institutions. Article Processing Charges (APCs), used by some of the Open Access journals, exacerbate the unsustainable situation of journal spending in university libraries and create unequal access to knowledge. Greater transparency on the publication costs for Open Access journals, and fair and transparent contractual arrangements with publishers are crucial for monitoring the proper use of public research funding.

It is important to develop alternative and sustainable non-APC Open Access models. The Guild calls for the member states to support the development and uptake of Diamond Open Access journals and platforms which consist often of community-driven, and academic-led and owned publishing initiatives. Unlike other Open Access models, Diamond Open Access journals and platforms do not charge any fees from the authors or readers. Thus, they can further empower researchers to disseminate their research results, ensuring bibliodiversity and vital academic publishing….”

New OSC resource to support book authors interested in open access publishing – Office of Scholarly Communication

The UC Office of Scholarly Communication has created a new resource for faculty who have questions about open access book publishing. Created by a working group that included faculty, librarians, and a representative from UC Press, the newly created OA books FAQ is intended to address some questions that faculty may have about their OA publishing options and provide links to additional resources that will help faculty navigate this landscape.

Should open access lead to closed research? The trends towards paying to perform research

Abstract:  Open  Access  (OA)  emerged  as  an  important  transition  in  scholarly  publishing  worldwide during the past two decades. So far, this transition is increasingly based on article processing charges (APC), which create a new paywall on the researchers’ side. Publishing is part of the research  process  and  thereby  necessary  to  perform  research.  This  study  analyses  the  global trends towards paying to perform research by combing observed trends in publishing from 2015 to 2020 with an APC price list. APC expenses have sharply increased among six countries with different  OA  policies:  the  USA,  China,  the  UK,  France,  the  Netherlands,  and  Norway.  The estimated global revenues from APC among major publishers now exceed 2 billion US dollars annually. Mergers and takeovers show that the industry is moving towards APC-based OA as the more profitable business  model.  Research publishing will be closed  to  those who cannot make an institution or project money payment. Our results lead to a discussion of whether APC is the best way to promote OA.

What Do Library-Publisher Relations Look Like in 2022?

 

In order to gain greater insight into the state of library-publisher relations today, we asked Executive Director of AUPresses, Peter Berkery, and Executive Director of the Association of Research Libraries, Mary Lee Kennedy, to share their thoughts about how relations between the two communities have changed. Their answers ultimately reveal more similarities than differences. They note current sites of collaborations (particularly around open access) and common areas of tension (around financial sustainability). While there has been a refiguring of what publishing means, both groups have a heightened dedication to a just and equitable scholarly environment. We hope these interviews can continue the dialogue that librarians and publishers are having across and within our communities.

Transforming the Scholarly Publishing Economy: Reflections on the First Three Years | April 2022

“As a follow-up to our CNI reporting in 2020, this briefing will focus on the status of The Ohio State University Libraries’ Transforming the Scholarly Publishing Economy strategic initiative. We are taking stock of the first three years of our initiative and looking toward renewing our strategic efforts in this space. We will highlight our current portfolio of transformational and transitional agreements, our support for open scholarly infrastructure and publishing, and our work with our consortial partners. We will also share our current thinking on future directions for our initiative.”

Coalition for Networked Information