Re: [GOAL] Projekt DEAL is a very serious impediment to BOAI Open Access

[Rzepa, Henry S]

Nature Publishing have an interesting approach to reviewers.  If all the 
reviewers AND authors of any given article agree (assuming its published), then 
the no-longer anonymous reviews can be included alongside the article itself, 
with name attribution at least  to the reviewers. As per everything else, the 
reviewers would not be paid for such exposure. I have yet to establish who 
could successfully claim copyright for these reviews. One might think the 
reviewers, but things are never that simple.

BUT: A colleague reports he was invited to write an "commentary" (rather than a 
review)  to go alongside an article. After writing and submitting it, he was 
hit with a full APC for his invited commentary. 

I also note that if a review is considered particularly substantive,  it might 
instead be directed towards eg 
https://www.nature.com/ncomms/submit/matters-arisingThis information 
clearly states "Matters Arising and their Replies are not subject to article 
processing charges".  But it might be tempting to conclude that some other 
publishers might be tempted to use open reviews as yet another income stream?

Henry Rzepa

> On 1 Sep 2019, at 09:08, Thomas Krichel  wrote:
> 
>  Peter Murray-Rust writes
> 
>> * set a precedent for everyone else - the "true price" of an article at
>> 2750 Eur.
> 
>  It would not be outrageous if the reviewers---who do all the real
>  work---would get 2k, say 500 for each of four reviewers. But I guess
>  they will get only three things: zilch, nada, and sweet fa.
> 
> -- 
> 
>  Cheers,
> 
>  Thomas Krichel  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
>  skype:thomaskrichel
> ___
> 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

Re: [GOAL] Projekt DEAL is a very serious impediment to BOAI Open Access

[Thomas Krichel]

  Peter Murray-Rust writes

> * set a precedent for everyone else - the "true price" of an article at
> 2750 Eur.

  It would not be outrageous if the reviewers---who do all the real
  work---would get 2k, say 500 for each of four reviewers. But I guess
  they will get only three things: zilch, nada, and sweet fa.

-- 

  Cheers,

  Thomas Krichel  http://openlib.org/home/krichel
  skype:thomaskrichel
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Re: [GOAL] Projekt DEAL is a very serious impediment to BOAI Open Access

[Lisa Hinchliffe]

For what it's worth, as far as I can see, this is not paywalled...

On Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 10:14 AM Peter Murray-Rust  wrote:

> I was interviewed by Chemistry World (Royal Soc Chem) last week about
> Projekt DEAL 's agreement with Springer.
> TL;DR I read as much as I could and gave the interview and said I was
> deeply unhappy about DEAL. The interview appeared, it 's now behind a
> premium wall. It mangled what I said and has done AmeliCA (which I said was
> a better way forward) a serious disservice. I have asked CW to correct and
> apologize. I post my snippet here.
> TL;DR+ I tweeted this and there has been an intense discussion (in as much
> as Twitter allows this). Assuming that what I learn is corroborated here ,
> I have an even worse opinion of DEAL (my comments to CW are mild); I am
> appalled at both the total waste of resources but also that DEAL is
> preventing evolution of BOAI Open Access and the huge missed opportunities.
> [I am ready to be corrected by facts, because the DEAL site and reporting
> makes it very difficult to get at the real facts.]
>
> First what I said: (now premiumwalled)
>
>
> https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/mixed-reception-for-german-open-access-deal-with-springer-nature/3010886.article
>
> >>>
> [snipped]
> An ‘absolute minefield’
>
> >>Not everyone is enthusiastic, however. Peter Murray-Rust
> , a chemist at the University of
> Cambridge who champions open access publishing, calls the new arrangement
> ‘hugely expensive’ and ‘administratively heavy’, and he describes it as ‘a
> total fragmentation’ of scientific publishing. ‘This might work well for
> German academics in negotiations with one particular publisher, but it
> doesn’t necessarily translate to another type of publisher in another
> country – you can see an absolute minefield of deals being set up.’
>
> >>Further, Murray-Rust argues that by omitting *Nature,* and other
> flagship scientific journals, the deal solidifies the research publishing
> scene to major commercial players and rich countries, and creates a
> glory-based industry rather than a knowledge dissemination mechanism.
> ‘These are glory journals, or high-impact journals, and they can probably
> charge more,’ he tells *Chemistry World*. ‘It is purely a marketing ploy.’
>
> >>Meanwhile, Peter Suber , who
> directs Harvard University library’s office for scholarly communication,
> recalls that Elsevier in the past was unable to reach negotiation on a
> similar agreement with Project Deal
> .
> ‘Springer Nature is showing more flexibility than Elsevier, and more
> willingness than Elsevier to meet the needs and interests of universities,’
> he says.
>
> >>Many opponents of arrangements like Project DEAL note that they might be
> imperfect but could serve as stepping-stones to better agreements. As an
> example of a preferable OA publishing model, Murray-Rust points to a new
> approach in Latin America, known as AmeliCA
> , which was launched last year.
>
> >>Led in part by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
> Organization (UNESCO), ***Project DEAL***  is centred on a non-profit
> publishing model and controlled by an inter-institutional academy. It
> involves universities and scientific journals sharing a common
> infrastructure of software, tools, hosting and training services.
>
> *** This shocking mistake should read AmeliCA ***
>
> PMR> my message a week ago is that the AmeliCA model should be what
> honours the BOAI with its vision of free shared knowledge  "the rich with
> the poor and the poor with the rich"
>
> I am not involved in German journals policy but I believe that:
>
> the aim of DEAL was to convert ("flip") current subscription-based
> publishing (free to author, pay to read) to APC-based (free to read, pay to
> author). This was an opportunity for DEAL (which is spending taxpayers
> money) to demand transparency, insist on a more equitable model, and reduce
> overall expenditure. As far as I can see (and I will stand corrected by
> facts) it has done none, and has not even tried to do any.
> Note that the Glamour mags (Nature and Nature children) are not part of
> the deal which is 40,000,000 Eur for about 16,000 published articles. DEAL
> published that the effective price per article was 2750 Eur. which figures
>
>
> Instead, and this is conjecture, the base assumptions are:
> * we need to flip journals to Gold OA. (the motivation for this is not
> clear, but probably because funders are or will require it).
> * Springer (and Wiley) won't do this unless their income stream is
> preserved. These publishers give value for money so we simply change the
> payment model. The costs are what the publishers tell us are necessary and
> we give them a lump sum without breakdown.
> * Authors won't flip 

[GOAL] Projekt DEAL is a very serious impediment to BOAI Open Access

[Peter Murray-Rust]

I was interviewed by Chemistry World (Royal Soc Chem) last week about
Projekt DEAL 's agreement with Springer.
TL;DR I read as much as I could and gave the interview and said I was
deeply unhappy about DEAL. The interview appeared, it 's now behind a
premium wall. It mangled what I said and has done AmeliCA (which I said was
a better way forward) a serious disservice. I have asked CW to correct and
apologize. I post my snippet here.
TL;DR+ I tweeted this and there has been an intense discussion (in as much
as Twitter allows this). Assuming that what I learn is corroborated here ,
I have an even worse opinion of DEAL (my comments to CW are mild); I am
appalled at both the total waste of resources but also that DEAL is
preventing evolution of BOAI Open Access and the huge missed opportunities.
[I am ready to be corrected by facts, because the DEAL site and reporting
makes it very difficult to get at the real facts.]

First what I said: (now premiumwalled)

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/mixed-reception-for-german-open-access-deal-with-springer-nature/3010886.article

>>>
[snipped]
An ‘absolute minefield’

>>Not everyone is enthusiastic, however. Peter Murray-Rust
, a chemist at the University of
Cambridge who champions open access publishing, calls the new arrangement
‘hugely expensive’ and ‘administratively heavy’, and he describes it as ‘a
total fragmentation’ of scientific publishing. ‘This might work well for
German academics in negotiations with one particular publisher, but it
doesn’t necessarily translate to another type of publisher in another
country – you can see an absolute minefield of deals being set up.’

>>Further, Murray-Rust argues that by omitting *Nature,* and other flagship
scientific journals, the deal solidifies the research publishing scene to
major commercial players and rich countries, and creates a glory-based
industry rather than a knowledge dissemination mechanism. ‘These are glory
journals, or high-impact journals, and they can probably charge more,’ he
tells *Chemistry World*. ‘It is purely a marketing ploy.’

>>Meanwhile, Peter Suber , who
directs Harvard University library’s office for scholarly communication,
recalls that Elsevier in the past was unable to reach negotiation on a
similar agreement with Project Deal
.
‘Springer Nature is showing more flexibility than Elsevier, and more
willingness than Elsevier to meet the needs and interests of universities,’
he says.

>>Many opponents of arrangements like Project DEAL note that they might be
imperfect but could serve as stepping-stones to better agreements. As an
example of a preferable OA publishing model, Murray-Rust points to a new
approach in Latin America, known as AmeliCA
, which was launched last year.

>>Led in part by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO), ***Project DEAL***  is centred on a non-profit
publishing model and controlled by an inter-institutional academy. It
involves universities and scientific journals sharing a common
infrastructure of software, tools, hosting and training services.

*** This shocking mistake should read AmeliCA ***

PMR> my message a week ago is that the AmeliCA model should be what honours
the BOAI with its vision of free shared knowledge  "the rich with the poor
and the poor with the rich"

I am not involved in German journals policy but I believe that:

the aim of DEAL was to convert ("flip") current subscription-based
publishing (free to author, pay to read) to APC-based (free to read, pay to
author). This was an opportunity for DEAL (which is spending taxpayers
money) to demand transparency, insist on a more equitable model, and reduce
overall expenditure. As far as I can see (and I will stand corrected by
facts) it has done none, and has not even tried to do any.
Note that the Glamour mags (Nature and Nature children) are not part of the
deal which is 40,000,000 Eur for about 16,000 published articles. DEAL
published that the effective price per article was 2750 Eur. which figures


Instead, and this is conjecture, the base assumptions are:
* we need to flip journals to Gold OA. (the motivation for this is not
clear, but probably because funders are or will require it).
* Springer (and Wiley) won't do this unless their income stream is
preserved. These publishers give value for money so we simply change the
payment model. The costs are what the publishers tell us are necessary and
we give them a lump sum without breakdown.
* Authors won't flip unless all their costs are paid
* The main purpose of publishing is to allow authors to get credit for
their work.  The only authors we need to consider are those supported by
universities and research institution grantholders.

* Readers are much less important and there is no pressing