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 

Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts

[Peter Murray-Rust]

Thank you Chris,
I feel exactly as you do, maybe more. This is wrong on several counts.

(a) as you say it requires the underprivileged (the "scholarly poor") to
beg. Some journals give lower prices for World Bank LMIC countries - but
often Brasil and India are classified as high-income. Even reducing the
price to half is impossible for many countries.

(b) the APC is NOT cost-related (see another post form me about DEAL). DEAL
pays Springer the price of an article (2750 E) whereas the cost of
processing is ca 400 E (Grossman and Brembs, 2019)
Costs are almost never transparent, therefore cause prices to be whatever
the publisher can get away with. This adds another layer of injustice.

I am affected by the APCs. I am on the board of two journals and being
retired have to pay and APC myself. I feel diminished if I have to ask to
get a waiver, and in any case it looks very unethical to gve waivers to the
board. I therefore cannot publish in the journals that I give my time
freely to.

The system is now completely out of date. Many places and organizations CAN
run platinum journals (no fee open to all). It's more ethical equitable and
makes knowledge fully available.
70% of climate papers are behind paywalls. Making a no-fee publish system
is the only way to get the knowledge flowing. My software can read 1
papers in a morning, but the broken societal system prevents that.

P.


On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 2:17 PM Chris Zielinski 
wrote:

> (Apologies for cross-posting)
>
> This is to raise a question about how editors of Open Access journals that
> demand an article processing charge (APC) should deal with discounts for
> non-institutional authors or those from poorer countries.
>
> The offering of substantial APC waivers to authors from specific countries
> or to researchers with financial constraints in specific cases is familiar.
> My question relates to the way in which such discounts are offered.
>
> Usually, a researcher needs to assert or demonstrate his/her inability to
> pay the APC before getting relief. The problem is that obliging researcher
> to request a lower or zero APC feels a bit like inviting them to beg – and
> the result often seems to depend on the benevolence and good humour of the
> editor, responding on an individual, case-by-case basis, rather than by
> applying some pre-established rule.
>
> This is surely not good enough. It can’t be correct and ethical scientific
> practice to require unsupported authors to face the embarrassment of having
> to turn out their pockets and demonstrate the holes in their socks before
> they get a discount.
>
> Any views on this? Should there be a norm among OA journals that each
> should adopt a standardized system to determine APC charges (ranging from 0
> to the full APC, depending on an explicit list of circumstances), avoiding
> the need for any negotiation?
>
> Best,
>
> Chris
>
> Chris Zielinski
> ch...@chriszielinski.com
> Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and
> http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com
> Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net
> ___
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL@eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>


-- 
"I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any contract I sign
with any publisher will override that fact. You should do the same".

Peter Murray-Rust
Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

[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 

[GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts

[Chris Zielinski]

 
 
  
   (Apologies for cross-posting)
  
  
   
  
  
   
This is to raise a question about how editors of Open Access journals that demand an article processing charge (APC) should deal with discounts for non-institutional authors or those from poorer countries.
   
   

   
   
The offering of substantial APC waivers to authors from specific countries or to researchers with financial constraints in specific cases is familiar. My question relates to the way in which such discounts are offered.  
   
   

   
   
Usually, a researcher needs to assert or demonstrate his/her inability to pay the APC before getting relief. The problem is that obliging researcher to request a lower or zero APC feels a bit like inviting them to beg – and the result often seems to depend on the benevolence and good humour of the editor, responding on an individual, case-by-case basis, rather than by applying some pre-established rule.
   
   

   
   
This is surely not good enough. It can’t be correct and ethical scientific practice to require unsupported authors to face the embarrassment of having to turn out their pockets and demonstrate the holes in their socks before they get a discount.
   
   

   
   
Any views on this? Should there be a norm among OA journals that each should adopt a standardized system to determine APC charges (ranging from 0 to the full APC, depending on an explicit list of circumstances), avoiding the need for any negotiation?
   
   

   
   
Best,
   
   

   
   
Chris
   
   

   
   Chris Zielinskich...@chriszielinski.comBlogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net
  
   
 

___
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal