Five principles to navigate a bumpy golden road towards open access

Otegem, Matthijs van; Wennström, Sofie; Hormia-Poutanen, Kristiina

doi:10.1629/uksg.403

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This newly assertive stance by librarians and funders is bolstered by new negotiation principles such as ‘no OA, no price increase’, ‘no deals without OA offsets’, ‘access should be sustainable’ and calls for cost transparency (ScienceEurope, ; University of California, ; van Otegem, Wennstrom, & Hormia‐Poutanen, ). Some speculate that this ‘can’t pay, won’t pay’ stance spooked investors from backing Springer’s IPO (Worlock, ).…”

Section: Introduction: Failing Stillmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Plan S, initially comprising 12 funders, called for publishing in fully OA journals only, a significant challenge to most subscription and hybrid journals (Else, 2018). This newly assertive stance by librarians and funders is bolstered by new negotiation principles such as 'no OA, no price increase', 'no deals without OA offsets', 'access should be sustainable' and calls for cost transparency (ScienceEurope, 2018;University of California, 2018;van Otegem, Wennstrom, & Hormia-Poutanen, 2018). Some speculate that this 'can't pay, won't pay' stance spooked investors from backing Springer's IPO (Worlock, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Is open access affordable? Why current models do not work and why we need internet‐era transformation of scholarly communications

Green

2019

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Progress to open access (OA) has stalled, with perhaps 20% of new papers ‘born‐free’, and half of all versions of record pay‐walled; why? In this paper, I review the last 12 months: librarians showing muscle in negotiations, publishers’ Read and Publish deals, and funders determined to force change with initiatives like Plan S. I conclude that these efforts will not work. For example, flipping to supply‐side business models, such as article processing charges, simply flips the pay‐wall to a ‘play‐wall’ to the disadvantage of authors without financial support. I argue that the focus on OA makes us miss the bigger problem: today’s scholarly communications is unaffordable with today’s budgets. OA is not the problem, the publishing process is the problem. To solve it, I propose using the principles of digital transformation to reinvent publishing as a two‐step process where articles are published first as preprints, and then, journal editors invite authors to submit only papers that ‘succeed’ to peer review. This would reduce costs significantly, opening a sustainable pathway for scholarly publishing and OA. The catalyst for this change is for the reputation economy to accept preprints as it does articles in minor journals today.

show abstract

Section: Introduction: Failing Stillmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%