Björn Brembs

[*Below, I've taken the liberty to "peer-review" recent proposals to
'flip' subscription journals to open access*]{style="font-size: 10pt;"}

The applicants have provided an
[interesting](https://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2148961:7/component/escidoc:2149096/MPDL_OA-Transition_White_Paper.pdf) 
[proposal](https://oa2020.org/roadmap/) of how to 'flip' the current
subscription journals to an article processing charges
(APC)-[based](https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/05/26/can-monies-spent-globally-on-journal-subscriptions-be-completely-transitioned-to-an-oa-business-model-to-free-the-journals/)
'gold' open access (OA)
[model](https://madlibbing.berkeley.edu/economic-thoughts-about-gold-open-access/?utm_content=bufferaa561&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer).
The authors propose to transition library subscription funds to
reimburse author-paid APCs. This should be done by each institution
first analyzing their current subscription portfolio and then
introducing open access (OA) funds to cover article expenses instead.
Importantly, maximum APC limits ("caps") are suggested as a central
measure to limit future APC increases. The proposal, while interesting
and potentially ground-breaking, cannot be accepted in its current form.
In particular, it seems the authors have overlooked an alternative
route, which is cheaper and nevertheless holds several additional
benefits not provided by the current proposal. In fact, there is a risk
that the current proposal may come with some untended consequences that
could
[deteriorate](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2016/04/how-gold-open-access-may-make-things-worse/?utm_content=buffere157b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer)
the already sub-optimal *status quo*. Before I can recommend accepting
this proposal, the authors at least need to address the following major
concerns (no particular order):

1.  Given that [high-ranking journals publish the least reliable
    science](https://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291/full),
    how does maintaining this pernicious hierarchy address the
    replication crisis? How is more public access to less reliable
    science benefiting the public?
2.  Why, in 2020, would anyone even think 17th century "journals" are
    even a technologically useful concept worth spending billions every
    year to subsidize? Why, in 2020, would selection and publishing
    still be bundled up as if to pretend printing presses were still a
    thing?
3.  As scholars are already evaluated according to the amount of tax
    funds (grants) they spend on experiments -- with more (not less!)
    tax funds spent indicating a more competitive scientist -- would it
    not be inconsequential if they were not also evaluated on the amount
    of tax funds they spent on publications? Especially if APCs
    [scale](https://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue/70/andrew/) with prestige,
    such that more money being spent indicated more prestige? What would
    keep evaluation committees from treating APC \$\$\$ analogously to
    grant \$\$\$? Why should the current impact factor not simply be
    replaced by the APC amount paid?
4.  If the prestige universities sell is analogous to the prestige
    journals sell, has competition among universities significantly
    reduced tuition fees? If tuition has not decreased recently, why is
    the prestige universities sell not analogous to the prestige
    journals sell?
5.  With the vast majority of all OA journals charging no APC at all
    competing with the few that do charge, APCs are nevertheless
    increasing at [above
    inflation](https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/apcs-and-subscriptions)
    rates (up to [70%
    year-over-year](https://poynder.blogspot.de/2015/07/emerald-group-publishing-tests-zen.html)).
    Additionally, some publishers already today charge APCs
    [above](https://www.nature.com/ncomms/open_access/index.html) the
    current average subscription price. In the light of this evidence,
    how can more journals that charge APCs be more of a competition than
    those that do not charge at all?
6.  If institutions choose/have to cap the amount of funds they
    reimburse their members for APCs, how does this not amount to a
    disadvantage of the scholarly poor? If they do not cap the amount,
    how can APC increases be controlled? In other words, why should a
    [high-ranking
    journal](https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we163.htm)
    not be able to charge an APC of US\$50k for a paper that virtually
    guarantees tenure or
    [funding](http://blogarchive.brembs.net/comment-n911.html), when
    [Harvard](https://www.gse.harvard.edu/admissions/financial_aid/tuition)
    can charge US\$250k for a degree that virtually guarantees
    employment?
7.  Given that even the most [optimistic
    estimates](https://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/pubman/item/escidoc:2148961:7/component/escidoc:2149096/MPDL_OA-Transition_White_Paper.pdf)
    only project a meager 20-30% short-term cost reduction without being
    able to guarantee sustained reductions in the future (indeed, there
    is [evidence](https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/apcs-and-subscriptions)
    already now, when most OA journals do not charge any APC at all, of
    above-inflation APC increases!), why would one not instead champion
    a scenario with an already existing business model and market, where
    sustained reductions on the order of 90% were virtually guaranteed?
    (I am referring to the alternative route: migrating to a
    service-based market, with companies like Scholastica or Ubiquity --
    if their services became too expensive, institutions are free to
    choose to switch or run the infrastructure themselves)
8.  Why would anyone want to pay billions in excess of actual costs
    merely to protect the balkanization of our literature into \>30k
    journals, effectively preventing content mining and hampering the
    implementation of an efficient recommendation system for our
    literature?
9.  With the abysmal track records of publishers first hogging our
    copyright and then putting APC-enabled articles back behind
    paywalls, why should we continue to trust these for-profit entities
    with our most valuable assets, our literature, instead of merely
    allowing them to compete with other companies for being allowed to
    polish our crown jewels?
10. How will flipping to a different business model address our need for
    a sustainable infrastructure covering our data and code, at the same
    time as it is addressing this (non-exhaustive) list of
    missing/lacking functionalities in our scholarly literature?
    - [Link-rot]{style="font-size: 10pt;"}
    - [No scientific impact analysis]{style="font-size: 10pt;"}
    - [Lousy peer-review]{style="font-size: 10pt;"}
    - [No global search]{style="font-size: 10pt;"}
    - [No functional hyperlinks]{style="font-size: 10pt;"}
    - [Useless data visualization]{style="font-size: 10pt;"}
    - [No submission standards]{style="font-size: 10pt;"}
    - [(Almost) no statistics]{style="font-size: 10pt;"}
    - [No content-mining]{style="font-size: 10pt;"}
    - [No effective way to sort, filter and
      discover]{style="font-size: 10pt;"}
    - [No semantic enrichment]{style="font-size: 10pt;"}
    - [No networking feature]{style="font-size: 10pt;"}

The point of these questions is, of course, that *all* of them would be
addressed if libraries and institutions kept our publications in-house,
according to [modern
infrastructure](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2015/04/what-should-a-modern-scientific-infrastructure-look-like/)
standards, with a flourishing service market to constantly develop and
improve their functionality and usefulness for the scientific community
and the public. Initiatives spearheading such a business model (still in
the deprecated, legacy journal format, though) are the [Open Library of
the Humanities](https://www.openlibhums.org/),
[lingOA](https://www.lingoa.eu/), [mathOA](https://www.mathoa.org/),
[psyOA](https://psyoa.org/) and other nascent
[fairOA](https://fairoa.org/) organizations. The authors should discuss
why their more expensive option is so superior to the less expensive
alternative route that does address every one of the points made above,
in particular taking into account that public institutions are commonly
required to choose the lowest responsible bidder.

Failing to adequately address these reviewer concerns should result in a
rejection of the proposal.

**UPDATE**: and as if right on cue, a [leaked
document](https://scienceguide.nl/201703/leaked-elsevier-contract-reveals-pushback.aspx)
evinces how publishers will try and subvert any 'flipping' negotiations.


<em>
 Below, I’ve taken the liberty to “peer-review” recent proposals to ‘flip’ subscription journals to open access
</em>
The applicants have provided an interesting  proposal of how to ‘flip’ the current subscription journals to an article processing charges (APC)-based ‘gold’ open access (OA) model. The authors propose to transition library subscription funds to reimburse author-paid APCs.

Postagens de Rogue Scholar

Please address these concerns before we can accept your #OA proposal