[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 <pm286 at cam.ac.uk> 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
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/goal/attachments/20190831/2b4dba5b/attachment.html