Mathijs VleugelFeb 20, 2023
Stephen Eglen

Should the UK make a deal with Springer Nature (SN)?

I argue that the UK should no longer support transformative deals; other forward-looking models are proposed.

1. Nature APCs are not justified.

2. Gold OA is not the only way forward.

3. Gold OA creates another paywall that prevents many authors from publishing.

4. SN refuse to recognise #RightsRetention for all authors.

5. SN have not met last year's targets for over half their transformative journals.

https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=3494

Should the UK make a deal with Springer Nature? - Unlocking Research

This is a guest post by Prof. Stephen J. Eglen on the concurrent negotiations between the UK academic sector and the publisher Springer Nature. Prof. Eglen is a Fellow of Magdalene College and Professor of Computational Neuroscience in the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge. This post does not … Continue reading Should the UK make a deal with Springer Nature? →

Unlocking Research
Feb 20, 2023 at 12:25pmWeb
Show threadMike Taylor 🦕Feb 20, 2023
@sje The whole point of transformative deals is that they provide space for the publisher to transform. Evidently SN has not done that satisfactorily. We should certainly not reward them for that failure by giving them more of what they want.
Show threadJohn TowseFeb 20, 2023

@sje
"However, Springer Nature assert that 'they haven’t found a way of making them [alternatives to GoldOA] financially sustainable'"

My translation: "But we can't make such large profit margins unless we get to set all the financial rules of the game"

Show threadStephen EglenFeb 20, 2023

@johnntowse

yes, totally agree. Given how much profit there is currently, its hard to imagine any new system being as lucrative for SN.

Show threadJohn TowseFeb 20, 2023

@sje
Of course, if SN really were on their uppers, unable to balance the books by servicing the needs of research (academics, libraries, funders etc) they should feel very free - and of course are - to walk away and find another industry willing to stomach their profit margins and their belligerence.

They want us to believe we need them (as part of their global divide and conquer contracts). Their dirty secret is that actually they need us, at least at the macro level.

Show threadpetersuberFeb 20, 2023

@sje
Hear hear. For more arguments against transformative agreements, see Recommendation 4 of the Budapest Open Access Initiative 20th anniversary recommendations.
https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/

#BOAI, #BOAI20

BOAI20 – Budapest Open Access Initiative

Show threadStephen EglenFeb 20, 2023
@petersuber
thank you, I'd not seen these 20th anniversary recommendations before.
Show threadWalt CrawfordFeb 20, 2023
@sje Just a reminder that most Gold OA journals (around 2/3) do not have fees. Otherwise, I'll stay out of it.
Show threadStephen EglenFeb 20, 2023

@waltcrawford

thanks for this clarification. By Gold OA, I'm implicitly meaning ones that where there is an APC. I appreciate that many times (e.g. when not in the legacy publishing world) that is not the case.

But do you then distinguish between gold OA and diamond OA?

Show threadWalt CrawfordFeb 21, 2023
@sje "Diamond OA" is a portion of Gold OA--that portion that doesn't have fees. And the "new name" folks can't seem to decide between Diamond and Platinum. Still, I may use "Diamond" for part of the next Gold OA study, if it will result in more use.
Show threadStephen EglenFeb 21, 2023

@waltcrawford

well, very unscientific but if you ask Google, then platinum OA gets about 2.9K hits, whereas diamond OA gets 15.4K hits.

I credit Marie Farge as the originator of the term 'Diamond OA', but I'm not sure who came up with Platinum -- do you happen to know?

Show threadWalt CrawfordFeb 21, 2023
@sje Not a clue. I think adding more terms complicates things, but I've been mostly a bystander on terminology--except that my now-seven-year-old study is Gold Open Access (working on the 8th iteration).
Show threadRichardFeb 22, 2023
@sje Is this saying that anyone in the world should be able to ask for an APC waiver, whoever they are, or that if the UK signs a ‘read and publish’ deal the price it pays should include a subsidy for those in the global south seeking a waiver? Or perhaps something else?
Show threadStephen EglenFeb 22, 2023

@rickypo hi!

It is saying both:

(a) anyone worldwide (including UK) should be able to get a waiver, no questions asked.

(b) obviously a waiver program needs to be factored into the cost of any deal by SN.

Does that make sense?

I would not support any TA deal otherwise.

If the UK can afford the deal in (a) maybe most people, but not all, in Uk would need waiver.

the UK is the single biggest consortium dealing with SN. If they won't budge for us, they won't budge for anyone.

Show threadRichardFeb 22, 2023
@sje So are you saying that the UK (and presumably all countries in the global north) should be willing to pay more for any read and publish deals they sign in order to allow researchers in the global south to publish for free?
Show threadStephen EglenFeb 22, 2023

@rickypo

almost.

I don't like R&P deals fundamentally, so I don't support the UK doing a deal with SN (or others) on these terms. R&P deals are obsolete.

What I do think though is that the UK (and others) should pay more into scholarly publishing so that any author (worldwide, but particularly the global south) can publish without charge.

S20 achieves this aim. Likewise, diamond OA models, funded by support from UK and other countries that can afford to, would achieve this aim.

Show threadStephen EglenFeb 22, 2023

@rickypo

its a bit like the arxiv model, but at a larger scale.