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 <[email protected]> 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 > <https://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/person/pm286>, 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 <https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/psuber>, 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 > <https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/german-universities-take-on-elsevier-/3007807.article>. > ‘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 > <http://amelica.org/index.php/en/about/>, 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 need to consult > them > > Twitter is a poor place to find facts and discussion , but I managed to > get the following information. > * No detailed study on publisher costs had been done (and certainly not > published) > * No significant section of civil society (i.e. not in Universities) had > been cosulted > * No readership had been consulted. > > My impression before DEAL was that the scholarly poor could not read the > literature, and now they can read it, but not publish. > If that is true then: > * it deepens the divide between the rich and the poor > * it sets up universities as a write-only priesthood with no mechanism for > multiway discourse > * it misses all the opportunities that the electronic democratic era > brings. > > There is massive opportunity for price reduction as well run organizations > can publish for very little: > > * J. Mach. Learn Res is platinum (free to author and read), So is J. Open > Source Software and many others. I am publishing this week in Beilstein J > Org Chem > * arxiv, etc is ca 8 USD > * commercial publishers like @ARPHAPlatform quote modular prices (i.e. the > customer can choose what they want and what not. I don't want typesetting, > I don't want marketing. Their range per artcile is about 60 USD - 600 USD. > * Grossman and Brembs estimated this year that 400 USD would cover the > costs of a typical STEM paper. > > So the DEAL price (not cost) per paper is SIX times the actual cost. Many > people in these discussions confuse price with cost as the costs are > non-transparent. > > What DEAL does is: > * waste taxpayers money > * give established publishers a free ride - they can charge what they like > especially in glamour mags and hybrids > * create a model almost as divisive before - one that Springer will try to > market to the Global South when it actually has a better, more ethical one > * nothing for civil society and industry > * set a precedent for everyone else - the "true price" of an article at > 2750 Eur. > > And it builds a world where the only players are rich Northern > universities and the largest most commercial megapublishers. It is bad news > for societies unless the have the courage to break away completely. If you > make an agreement with a megapublisher you lose control of what you don, > how you do it and what the cost to the world is. > > -- > "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 > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
