From Gwen Evans in The Scholarly Kitchen:
As several recent announcements and initiatives have shown, Open Access (OA) negotiations between libraries and publishers are complex, in a constant state of flux, and provide little predictability — and OA models and negotiations within library consortia contain complexities all their own. One of the key questions library consortia have to ask themselves is, Are you a Publish or a Read library consortium, or somewhere in between? As Lisa Hinchliffe’s recent primer on transformative agreements notes, the implications of Publish and Read versus Read and Publish are different for different consortia.
Continue reading here:
Source: Guest Post: Evaluating Open Access in a Consortial Context – The Scholarly Kitchen
From Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe in The Scholarly Kitchen:
Like many others, I found myself reading response after response after response to cOAlition S’ call for feedback on the Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S last week. The volume of response is staggering. Statements have poured in from individual and groups — publishers, scholarly societies, disciplinary repositories, scholarly communications platforms, funding agencies, publishing professionals, libraries, library associations, and researchers themselves. As the deadline drew near on Friday, I could hardly “right click/open link in new tab” fast enough as my Twitter feed scrolled by. The input from Norway alone has reached 885 pages. The Open Access Tracking Project currently has almost 400 documents tagged oa.plan_s. reddit Open Science and Scholia/wikidata have also been tracking replies. One imagines that there is feedback that has not been shared publicly as well.
Source: Taking Stock of the Feedback on Plan S Implementation Guidance – The Scholarly Kitchen
From Roger Schonfeld via the Scholarly Kitchen
“Last week, approximately 180 leaders from scholarly societies, libraries, publishers, and other organizations came together at ITHAKA’s Next Wave conference in New York City. The day’s sessions featured an array of different formats and experts, focusing mostly on fundamental changes facing higher education in the United States, the result of underlying demographics, financial pressures, narrowing political support, and tension around how to define student success. The program also included a number of sessions focused on scholarly publishing and academic libraries. The opening session was an interview, conducted by ITHAKA president Kevin Guthrie of Elsevier’s chairman Youngsuk (“YS”) Chi, with some additional questions from the audience. The interview generated discussion and perspective not only about Elsevier itself, but also about broader changes in scholarly communication and approaches to organizational leadership. I have attempted to reconstruct the interview here from my notes, and Chi and Guthrie have each had a chance to edit and expand their remarks here for the record.”
Source: Elsevier Chairman YS Chi: An Interview – The Scholarly Kitchen
From Roger C. Schonfeld via The Scholarly Kitchen:
“Today, in looking at the scholarly publishing sector, equity markets are focused on the European national-level consortial negotiations. If analysts are not surprised at the strong rhetoric about cancelling Big Deal packages that has emerged from the university sectors, they are troubled to see entire nations actually canceling their licenses. They have watched publishing revenue from a major country like Germany disappear all at once from one major publisher’s income statement. And they want to know whether this “contagion” will spread to North America. My view is that, while the germs are circulating, at least in the near term, publishers are unlikely to face a global pandemic.”
Read more here:
Source: Will the European Big Deal Contagion Spread to North America? – The Scholarly Kitchen