Dear Victor, others,
indeed I have wondered about that as well. Of course, in Plan S the idea is to require cost transparency. But the question is of course what is acceptable for each of the services? If we can't have full diamond, some a APC could consist of 50 USD/Euro each for: - hosting - xml - CC0 sharing of citation data - CC-licenses - archiving - doi - reciprocal linking to preprints, self-archived versions and datasets - author contributorship role taxonomy implemented - handling peer review - copy-editing - plagiarism check - submission admin Of course this is simplistic and the 50 is just randomly set and too low for some services, too high for others. Some reasoned assessments of (ranges of) real costs for these are very welcome. These services could also be taken into account in considerations around financing diamond arrangements. And even if this keeps a check on APCs, they might still pose a barrier for some, so automatic waivers would still need to be available. Jeroen <https://101innovations.wordpress.com/> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeroen Bosman, scholarly communication specialist and faculty liaison for the Faculty of Geosciences | Utrecht University Library<http://www.uu.nl/library> | email: j.bos...@uu.nl<mailto:j.bos...@uu.nl> |telephone: +31.6.24865967 | mail: Postbus 80124, 3508 TC, Utrecht, The Netherlands |visiting address: room 2.16, Heidelberglaan 3, Utrecht<https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=heidelberglaan%203%20utrecht#map=16/52.0851/5.1776> | Web: Jeroen Bosman<http://www.uu.nl/university/library/en/disciplines/geo/Pages/ContactBosman.aspx> | twitter @jeroenbosman<https://twitter.com/jeroenbosman> ________________________________ From: goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of Victor Venema <victor.ven...@grassroots.is> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 5:39:39 PM To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) Subject: [GOAL] Plan S: APC and service level Dear colleagues, One of the discussions of Plan S is about its impact on researchers from less wealthy institutions. The article below is typical and I found the comment below insightful. It made me wonder, would it be possible to link APCs to the service level? We could make a system where you can only ask for the maximum APC mentioned in plan S if you provide all services required by Plan S, while journals fulfilling less requirements would have a lower maximum APC. Maybe an old idea/compromise, but I had not seen it anywhere yet. With best regards, Victor Venema https://grassroots.is https://theconversation.com/how-the-open-access-model-hurts-academics-in-poorer-countries-113856 > Dominique Babini > > Thank you for this very interesting reading and contribution to the > conversation on the negative impact of APCs in developing regions. You are > so right.Why did APCs started? We, in Latin America, worked the past 20 > years to build successful non-commercial, non-APCs, academic-led, open access > journals (only 5% of journals charge very low APCs) and now we are shocked to > see that the basic question is not raised again and again: why should > publicly-funded research outputs be a product in the market and not a > commons/public good, and why open access should be a market and not a commons > managed by the scholarly community?We are concerned with growth in the number > of articles published with APCs, and because Plan S favors commercial APCs > journals because they will comply with Plan S requirements which are not easy > for developing regions quality OA journals to comply with. https://theconversation.com/how-the-open-access-model-hurts-academics-in-poorer-countries-113856 _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
