Forwarding from the Scholcomm mailing list.
Subject: RE: [SCHOLCOMM] Plan S: What strategy now for the Global South? Hi David, Thank you for the feedback. I do discuss waivers on page 19. I am not sure why you say Plan S requires zero or discounted APCs for LMICS. I understand that David Sweeney has said he expects APCs to partly subsidise waiver schemes that will facilitate publishers continuing to offer discount to researchers from these regions, but I am not sure how much of a solution that offers, since the cost of APCs is already a huge issue in Europe. https://editorresources.taylorandfrancis.com/peersupport/coalition-s-plan-s-and-accelerating-oa/ But let’s just consider the current discount schemes offered by publishers and look at the case of India, since a series of tweets last week suggests that it is thinking of joining Plan S. The World Bank table you cite classifies India as a middle income country. If you review the waiver schemes of legacy publishers Elsevier and Wiley (I have not checked all legacy publishers), they indicate that waivers are given based not on World Bank figures, but Research4Life classification. (In fact Elsevier does not guarantee a waiver for any author, it just says that it will prioritise Research4Life countries. Wiley also seems to be a little bit cautious about making any firm promises. https://authorservices.wiley.com/open-research/open-access/for-authors/waivers-and-discounts.html https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/pricing The Research4Life countries are listed here: https://www.research4life.org/access/eligibility/ I do not see India on that list. If you then take the example of an OA publisher like PeerJ you see that it offers waivers for lower income countries, but does not mention middle income countries. https://peerj.com/pricing/ I think it might also be worth considering what the Indian publication The Wire says about this. It takes the example of PeerJ and calculates that joining Plan S would cost India an additional Rs 616.46 crore. I am not entirely sure what that is in dollars, but I think it is a lot of money. You will see the article lists a number of other reasons why Plan S might not be the best solution for India, including the fact that APC caps probably won’t work: https://thewire.in/the-sciences/six-concerns-over-india-joining-the-plan-s-coalition-for-science-journals Finally, in addition to joining Plan S, India is currently thinking of paying PhD students who publish in “reputed” international journals a one-time payment of 50,000 rupees (about US$700). I am wondering why these international journals would want to introduce waivers for Indian researchers/ students where they apparently do not exist given that such schemes as this will make it more of a seller’s market. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00514-1 But as you say, it is hard to evaluate rules fully before they are announced. Best wishes, Richard Poynder From: scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> <scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org> > On Behalf Of David Wojick Sent: 17 February 2019 13:11 To: Richard Poynder <richard.poyn...@btinternet.com <mailto:richard.poyn...@btinternet.com> > Cc: <scholc...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> > <scholc...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> > Subject: Re: [SCHOLCOMM] Plan S: What strategy now for the Global South? A lot of thoughtful analysis, Richard, as usual. However, you do not seem to take into account that Plan S requires zero APC for authors from low income countries and discounted APC for those from middle income countries. Both are nicely listed here (as a basis for tuition): https://dental.washington.edu/wp-content/media/research/WorldBank_EconomyRanks_2018.pdf Of course neither the Plan S middle income discount rate or the APC cap have been announced, so we do not yet know the potential impact on the Global South. But if the APCs were capped at $2000 and the discount were 90% then the middle income country APC would only be $180. Not that I am predicting that. It is admittedly hard to evaluate rules that have not yet been defined. David http://insidepublicaccess.com On Feb 16, 2019, at 8:31 AM, Richard Poynder (via scholcomm Mailing List) <scholc...@lists.ala.org <mailto:scholc...@lists.ala.org> > wrote: Since the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative the OA movement has had many successes, many surprises, and many disappointments. OA initiatives have also often had unintended consequences and the movement has been beset with disagreement, divisiveness, and confusion. In that sense, the noise and rancour surrounding Plan S is nothing new, although the discord is perceptibly greater. What seems clear is that Plan S raises challenging questions for those in the Global South. And even if Plan S fails to win sufficient support to achieve its objectives, ongoing efforts in Europe to trigger a “global flip” to open access, and the way in which open content is likely to be monetised by commercial publishers, both suggest that the South needs to develop its own (alternative) strategy. I have explored what I see as the issues and discuss a possible strategy in the essay here: https://poynder.blogspot.com/2019/02/plan-s-what-strategy-now-for-global.html The essay ends with an interview with Omar Barreneche, Executive Secretary of Uruguay’s National Agency for Research and Innovation. The first Twitter reviews are in! https://twitter.com/rschon/status/1096535339051700224 https://twitter.com/TomReller/status/1096565601974317056 https://twitter.com/irenehames/status/1096711870466142208 Richard Poynder
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
