Friday 13 September 2019, 10:45 AM – 11:45 AM (1 Hour)

A Q&A session with Johan Rooryck, the new OA Champion of cOalition S, who will discuss Plan S as a transition path to an open research future. Questions can be submitted in advance for what promises to be an engaging conversation.

Download slides:
Plenary 5 – Plan S – the road ahead Johan Rooryck


Dr. Sarah Greaves
Chief Publishing Officer, Hindawi Ltd
Sarah has over 18 years of experience within STM editorial and publishing. She was originally an academic researcher, completing her PhD at the MRC-Laboratory of Molecular Biology, before joining the editorial team at Nature Cell Biology in 1999. After 4 years working within editorial she moved into the Nature publishing team and was the Publisher for Nature for many years. During her time at Nature Publishing Group (now Springer Nature) Sarah also launched the first Nature branded title with an Open Access option, Nature Communications, and subsequently launched Scientific Reports. Throughout her career, she has focused on creating innovative new products and services aimed at solving key researcher pain points whilst ensuring the academic scientist remains at the heart of any publishing decision. Sarah is involved in numerous STEM outreach initiatives and is currently a volunteer with both InToUniversity and STEM Ambassadors.

Johan Rooryck
cOAlition S
Johan Rooryck is a researcher, journal editor, and committed advocate of Open Access publishing. He is Professor of French Linguistics at Leiden University in the Netherlands, where his main research interests lie in the interaction between morphology, syntax, and semantics, and in the relation between language and core knowledge systems. He has over 20 years’ experience as an editor, first as the Executive Editor of Lingua (Elsevier) and since 2015 as the founder and Editor in Chief of the Fair Open Access journal Glossa: a journal of general linguistics. He is President of the Quality Open Access Market (QOAM), founding member and President of the Fair Open Access Alliance (FOAA), founding member of Mathematics in Open Access (MathOA) and Psychology in Open Access (PsyOA), founding member and President of Linguistics in Open Access (LingOA), and Member of the Academia Europaea.


View Transcript
[00:00:00.00] [MUSIC PLAYING] [00:00:15.70] SARAH GREAVES: Thank you all for coming back from your coffee break and your tea break. And I’m sure there’s lots of discussion about the first session. We’re now moving on to what was billed as our last plenary session, but it’s actually more of our last keynote speaker, because we’re very delighted and privileged to have here the new champion for cOAlition S. And this is going to take the whole of the next hour, so hopefully there’ll be lots of time for questions, so we can make the most of this final session.

[00:00:43.95] And obviously there’s this topic here– this talk is on a topic that shouldn’t need any introduction to any of us. We all know about Plan S. If we don’t, we’re probably all in the wrong room, and you obviously weren’t at the session first thing this morning. But we do have a new face today talking about it.

[00:00:58.69] So Johan Rooryck is the new champion, open access champion representing cOAlition S. But he’s also a professor of French linguistics at Leiden University. And he is taking on the role with the cOAlition S to help continue those conversations that Malavika alluded to in the previous session about interactions and discussions with funders, with research institutes, with libraries, and with publishers, so ourselves, and promising to help listen to us and our concerns about the implementation of Plan S and to develop and adapt the plans to help him implement this transition to full open access.

[00:01:36.13] Johan is also many other things. I printed out his CV, which was 38 pages, but I’m going to summarize that very briefly for you this morning. He was the first the executive editor of Lingua. In 2015, he was also the founder and editor of Glossa. So lots of open access journals within the linguistics space. So a very different field for many of us who have focused on science publishing.

[00:02:02.29] He’s also the president of quality within the Open Access Market, and he is the founder and president of the Fair Open Access Alliance plus many, many more things. So he is a worthy representative to take on the mantle of being the Open Access Champion. And I’m sure we’re all fascinated to hear what he’s got to say to us this morning as we wrap up our conference. So over to you. Thank you very much.

[00:02:27.41] [APPLAUSE] [00:02:33.75] JOHAN ROORYCK: Well, thank you for inviting me. It’s an honor and a pleasure to be here. So I’m going to present Plan S yesterday and speak a little bit about how we see the road ahead. I will be mainly talking about the implementation plan that came out in June, and I will give you a brief summary of that and what we are planning to do next. I won’t talk for a full hour. Not to worry. I probably will need 20, 25 minutes, and then I’ll open the discussion, and any questions are welcome.

[00:03:08.43] Let me give you a brief overview of the talk, perhaps. Plan S is built on strong principles. That’s what I will be talking about first. And I will talk about the implementation guidance and what the key changes are that have been brought into the implementation when compared to last year. Then I will talk about the alignment that we are pursuing with Plan S and the governance system that we have in mind.

[00:03:37.78] And I will dwell also a bit longer on how we are working with key stakeholders, among whom yourselves. I will also talk about our other activities, activities that we have in mind, and we are currently pursuing, and finally, there will be room for questions and discussions. That’s the summary.

[00:03:57.73] So why are we doing this? Why do we want open access? Well, we want open access because we think research results are a public good. They are mostly achieved with public money, so we need to give back to the community. Not only give back to the community but also to our fellow researchers so that they can immediately access research and make and accelerate science. That’s the main goal, I think. Accelerate science in any way, shape, or form.

[00:04:28.06] And in order to do that, we believe that paywall publications are really an obstacle to that goal. So the paywall has to go. This morning at breakfast, I compared it to today’s Berlin Wall. So the paywall has to go.

[00:04:43.35] So open access also in Plan S must be immediate, no embargo period. Publication should be under CC BY license by default, and there should be no copyright transfer anymore. We want authors to have their own copyright. That’s couched in principle one. And there should be also transparency about pricing and contracts. So we want open access, and we want open access for a fair price. That is the upshot of those principles.

[00:05:15.95] Publication fees should be transparent and reasonable for that. That’s in principle five. And funders, in exchange for that transparency, funders commit to support these publication fees. And something that is very dear to me, individual researchers do not pay, do not have to be involved. Researchers should do research. They should not be accountants.

[00:05:38.81] Multiple routes. We provide multiple routes to OA compliance in principle five. I’ll talk about that a little bit. And there is also a commitment to assess research outputs now based on their intrinsic merit and not their venue of publication. So basically, Plan S now endorses DORA in principle 10, because we think it’s very important to change the conversation about evaluation of researchers and to no longer do that in terms of metric or in terms of the prestige of a journal, but to assess the individual article on their individual metrics.

[00:06:10.34] So we are really moving from a journal prestige system into an article prestige system, I believe. And that’s something that is certainly couched in DORA. And also moving from quantity based metrics to quality based metric, which still need to be developed, but clearly the conversation about that has started.

[00:06:30.56] The key changes. Implementation guidance came out in June, I believe, and there’s a number of key changes there with respect to last year. The changes in the implementation guidance have been generally well received. I mean, I also noticed that the panel was very positive about those changes. So let me quickly go through some of those changes.

[00:06:50.36] First of all, the timeline has been extended by one year, because in many reactions, we received the reaction that this was really very short notice. So time has been extended by one year. Publications now from calls published as of January 2021 will have to be in open access, and transformative arrangements will be supported until 2024.

[00:07:12.01] There is now also greater clarity on compliance routes. cOAlition S supports a diversity of business models. That is very important to say, because there’s still a lot of confusion about the fact that we would only support gold open access. That is not the case. Immediate green is also fully compliant. I want to stress that.

[00:07:32.75] I’ll say it again. Immediate green is also fully compliant, even though we think, like the panel believed just a moment ago, that green is a transitional model. It helped in the past, and it is probably now has its best day, and we really need to move fully to gold open access. But still, as an intermediate measure, it’s definitely something that can play an important role.

[00:07:58.92] So these are the key. This is an overview of the key changes that we want, the various routes that are being presented, and how cOAlition S support that. So we support also publishing in an open access journal, in an open access platform, and the publication’s fees will be supported. If the authors publish in a subscription journal, then you can publish the version of record or the accepted version in green open access, but that will not be supported. We will not support hybrid journals.

[00:08:35.24] We will only support journals that have a transformative agreement or that have transformative arrangement, as we call it, towards open access. So journals that formally commit to transitioning to open access either in a design frame or on a year by year increase in open access, that is something that we will entertain, but we will no longer support hybrid, because hybrid has been shown not to work. It became sort of an end point rather than a transition point. So that is the last arrangement that is there. Namely, authors can publish in the subscription journal that has a transformative arrangement, and that will be supported by the funders.

[00:09:18.53] All right. So a range of transformative arrangements are supported here. There’s a transformative agreement. This is something that Alicia and Lorraine also talked about yesterday. I’ll give you some examples about that. Then that’s a transition from subscription to open access publishing. That is a contract between university libraries and publishers, basically.

[00:09:40.76] There’s also the notion of transformative model agreement, namely agreement for transition that avoid double payments. Again, something that Alicia and Lorraine have been working on. And there’s also the notion of transformative journals, where subscription fees are offset. The subscription costs are offset against a gradual increase in the open access fee. So the idea there is as the journal receives more open access fees, the subscription costs go down for the libraries. And there’s a sort of an equitable transition between the two. That is also something that we will entertain as a model towards the transformation.

[00:10:20.80] Funders will also commit– another change in this guidance was that we now support DORA principles when undertaking research assessment, which I already talked a little bit about. And there will be greater emphasis on the transparency of open access fees. There’s an option to request a CC-By-ND license now, which needs to be justified by authors. But that’s an option that didn’t exist before.

[00:10:45.37] And also, very importantly, the technical requirements for journals, platforms, and repositories have been revised and simplified. We are still thinking a little bit how we can make that easier in the transition. It’s very likely that we will not require those technical requirements to be implemented immediately as of 2021, but there will be some grace period for those.

[00:11:15.17] These are the funders that have agreed to be part, that are subscribing to Plan S. You probably know, the World Health Organization has decided to join Plan S. We think that is a very good development, because, of course, in health, it’s extremely important, as Steve Curry also reminded us with the Zika example in health. It’s extremely important to get all the information out there as quickly as possible so that people can make progress on finding cures and finding solutions. So the fact that the World Health Organization has decided to join is, for us, a sign that many funders are thinking in the same direction to change the world for the better.

[00:12:06.63] The entire effort, of course, is not only national funders that are joining. There is also charitable funders, like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that are part of cOAlition S. And the whole effort is coordinated by Science Europe.

[00:12:21.54] Little bit about our governance. As you can see, we have a number of members. We have a leader’s group, an executive steering group that meets every two weeks to set policy and discuss problems. We will set up a cOAlition S office by January. And we also have communication groups and expert groups and various tasks forces to identify problems and address them. So that’s the way we will– you can find all of this on the website that I’m showing it here as well.

[00:12:59.31] Also, now I’ll move on to the next item on the agenda, namely, how we work with key stakeholders. First of all, we want to work with researchers. We want to work with researchers group to understand concerns and find ways of mitigating them. One of them, for instance, is researchers should not be concerned with paying for the APCs. So that’s something we want to take care of. But research concerns can be very different across disciplines. So we want to listen to researchers. And that is why we are seeking to work with the Global Young Academy and other organizations to see what the measure of impact is of Plan S on early career researchers.

[00:13:43.50] And a task force hasn’t been established to investigate this and to see how this works. Because very often what we see is that young researchers do want to publish in open access, because they know those papers are cited more, but they also know that they will be evaluated on the basis of very old metrics by people who are a generation older than them and who have metrics and evaluation agenda that is very different from their ambitions and aspirations. So this is something that we want to mitigate, and this is also something that where, of course, DORA and the new evaluations that need to be developed will play a big role. So task force has been assigned to establish that.

[00:14:24.18] We also have established an ambassador network. You see them on the names and pictures on the screen. Ambassador network, which is a network that’s been explicitly established to share concerns with cOAlition S, to talk to people in the field in the various disciplines, also in various countries, to see what the concerns are and how we can take those into account and address them in the leadership team. We also talk to publishers. I mean, I’m here, right?

[00:15:03.12] We are in active discussions with publishers such as the Society Publishers’ Coalition, also Springer Nature and others. I’ve had very interesting conversations with many of you in the few days that I was here. And we want to talk about the transformative journal model, which is also something that Alicia and Lorraine talked about yesterday, transformative journal model. This is something that we want to explore together with you in the future.

[00:15:32.98] Other journals and publishers, of course, go a different route. They will support green open access, which will at least function as an interim model. This is what we see, for instance, in some societies like the Historical Society in the UK. We also see that, for instance, the Lancet Group thinks that this is the right way to go, green open access, at least for now. We also see it with some publishers like Emerald and like Sage who have a green open access policy and allow their authors to put the final accepted manuscript in a repository for now. So these are things that we welcome as a transitional model, of course.

[00:16:23.76] Another group that is important to us is the learned societies. For the learned societies, we have already heard this yesterday, Wellcome and UKRI in collaboration with the ALPSP have funded a study for alternative business models. This is what we heard yesterday. Alicia and Lorraine presented some of that. This is the picture there. Also you can find this on the Figshare site of Wellcome. A report has been published about it. That report contains various 27 business models and the strategies.

[00:16:58.26] And also a model transformative agreement with an implementation toolkit. We heard more about it yesterday. If you weren’t here yesterday, perhaps you can consult the website, because everything was recorded, I believe. But I’m briefly recapping what this work was about. It was initiated by UKRI and the Wellcome Trust.

[00:17:20.10] I think these are very important tools to think for both societies and for libraries to move forward– and publishers to move forward towards a transformative agreement and towards full open access. Societies then can use this agreement to offer transformative arrangements, and that can already be done as of next year.

[00:17:42.06] And this is, of course, also where another stakeholder comes in, namely the libraries and library consortia, because libraries, as Ralf also mentioned in the previous session, libraries are key in this. Libraries basically hold all the money that is necessary to do the conversion. There is enough money in the system to do the conversion to open access. But of course, how you help libraries to move in this context is a very– it’s quite a challenge.

[00:18:15.43] So libraries will play a key role in converting subscription funds to open access fees. And this is also something that can be arranged that can be for which the transformative agreement is designed and designed to help libraries and library consortia to complete this transition to open access. 90% or 91%, I think it was, came out of the study that Alicia did, are willing to engage with scholarly societies and society publishers.

[00:18:45.99] And I think it is important that all of us seize that momentum and that willingness and that goodwill that is there to come to a solution. I mean, I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. We are all in this together. Societies, universities, funders, publishers, scholars. We all want– it’s very clear that we all want to move to open access. We have to keep talking to each other to make that a reality in the next few years. That is definitely possible, I believe, with the momentum that we are currently seeing.

[00:19:24.75] Libraries can also assist scholarly societies, I believe, and journals. In managing journals, they can provide services in terms of journal managers, for instance. I mean, that’s an arrangement that I’ve entered with the Library of [INAUDIBLE], for instance, for my own journal, Glossa, and the other journals of the Lingua group. We have some support from the libraries.

[00:19:45.75] So I think libraries can play in the future a more active role with those journals that are edited by researchers in their universities. That’s another role libraries can play in this transformation, I think. Because libraries are very much integrating their role in the future. Before they used to curate books. But since books and paper do not exist anymore, what are they curating? So they are looking for a new role, and this is one of the roles that they are reflecting on currently in my experience.

[00:20:22.74] Key role is also universities. We have been talking to the European University Association and LERU. And these university associations have strongly supported Plan S. Of course, they need to also support Plan S towards their researchers and convince their researchers that the move to open access is necessary. And these are conversations that are currently being held in the various universities that are part of these organizations.

[00:20:55.13] We also want to very explicitly work with other open access initiatives. Like Ralf said, there is a convergence between the goals of, for instance, open access OA 2020 and cOAlition S. There is a joint statement to this purpose. We want to very clearly state that we move together towards the same goal, perhaps by slightly different means. But certainly, the notion of transformative agreements, for instance, is one that we share with OA 2020 and want to pursue in the very near future.

[00:21:30.37] There is also the Sao Paulo statement on open access, which is where we reach out to two countries from the south, namely the African Open Science Platform and [INAUDIBLE] and [INAUDIBLE], which pursue the same goals, sometimes by different means. But the same goal is stated there, namely reaching open access as quickly as possible. And it is important to show that this is a global movement, not just a movement from the north or from the south, but it’s a global movement where we are all have a stake.

[00:22:14.42] The Plan S guidance also specifies transparent pricing. So this is, again, something where Wellcome with UKRI and on behalf of cOAlition S have appointed information power. So Alicia and Lorraine to lead a collaborative project to develop a framework for this communication. So the basic idea there is what are the services, let’s say the 10, 12 services, that publishes identify as central services for publishing and that you can put a price on. So that pricing can be transparent.

[00:22:49.76] This is also something that you want to be a little bit diverse as a function of the disciplines that are served by the different publishers. So it could very well be the case, for instance, that SDM publishers have a different set– [INAUDIBLE] for a different set of services than publishers who are more on the humanities side.

[00:23:10.73] Also this is, of course, something that will evolve in time as new technologies develop and as publishers want to implement new technologies. These services can change. But very clearly, there is a requirement here that we as a research community and universities and the funders want to see more transparency in the pricing.

[00:23:32.63] I always compare it to when I bring my car to the car mechanic, I don’t want my car mechanic to say, look, I will charge you 2,000 euros, and you can be assured your car will be serviced for that price, and everything will be in order. But he doesn’t tell me whether I have an oil change or whether my tires were old and had to be changed or whether there is water in the carburetor and so on. We really want to know that now. That’s in the interest of greater transparency and the interest of a more open conversation. So it’s not just open access. It’s also open access in pricing. That’s what we are after here.

[00:24:13.99] And again, this is an ongoing conversation. It’s really something that needs to develop in the next few months. And various publishers have already done that. Not just Ubiquity Press, but also, for instance, Frontiers and MDPI. Various publishers have already made the pricing of their services available and transparent on their website.

[00:24:36.12] So this is what cOAlition S helps to do, wants to help to do, namely to make that nature and prices of open access publishing services more transparent. And this will, we hope, build or rebuild confidence between researchers, universities, libraries so that everybody knows where the money goes and what the pricing pays for and what it doesn’t pay for.

[00:25:04.94] And the project will not– the project that I am talking about will not explore costs or current or future pricing. I want to specify that. I see Alicia nodding there. It will just explore what are the services that need to be priced. So I invite you all to participate in that conversation in the next few months.

[00:25:32.06] Then there will be– I say a little bit about our other activities. We are now currently setting up a cOAlition S office. And this cOAlition S office will appoint staff and award contracts to take forward the work associated with the implementation of Plan S. Until now, as you could see, some of those contracts have been awarded by Wellcome and UKRI. We want to centralize that in a cOAlition S office.

[00:25:55.59] That should be up and running by January. The budget is defined and should be funded by those cOAlition S members who are able to make a financial contribution, but it is no obligation for cOAlition S funders to make a financial contribution. It’s very important. In cOAlition S, there have not been contracts signed, for instance, on the dotted line, like we are a member of cOAlition S. It’s a voluntary effort for now. So that office is expected to be up and running by January 2020.

[00:26:28.74] We also have a number of other activities going on prior to actions for cOAlition S. So in addition to the first two that have are currently underway, there should be meetings for challenges, to identify challenges in running Plan S. We have to work together towards a vision for the long term future. Task forces need to be set up, and we need to work with publisher representatives, societies, consortia, and so on. So these are the priorities that, again, can be found on our website.

[00:27:04.17] Finally, I would like to say to finish that I really recognize the need for working together on this. Plan S is part, of course, of a much wider open access movement, open science movement. And there as well, the goal is to accelerate the transition to providing research results in open access, research results of any kind. Open data, open science, open access.

[00:27:33.41] And to fully deliver on its ambition, of course, we need a global coalition. I cannot stress this enough. The global coalition, not only of funders, but also of institutions of publishers, researchers, a global coalition to move this forward and to identify problems and to solve problems on the way. Like Ralph said before, I mean, this is a human enterprise, and with some luck, human enterprises can be changed, and we can find solutions together. But we won’t find solutions if we don’t keep talking to each other. We need to have this as an evolving conversation.

[00:28:07.85] I do believe that Plan S is a catalyst towards that goal. It’s not the only solution, but it’s certainly a catalyst towards that goal, and that’s also why I took on this role to represent cOAlition S. So I really invite you to a conversation now, questions and discussion about open access. Thank you very much.

[00:28:30.14] [APPLAUSE] [00:28:40.34] Questions? OK, sorry. Yes?

[00:28:45.23] AUDIENCE: Hello. My name is Andrea Powell, and I represent the Research for Life program. Thank you for a very clear presentation this morning, and I was very pleased to hear you talk about the need for a global coalition and the fact that this isn’t just a problem for the north. We’re very keen to see a successful transition to open access in the global south as well. I’m just wondering if you could comment a bit further on what you feel the role of the cOAlition S might be in that context, what support you might be able to offer to the researchers and their institutions in the south?

[00:29:18.04] JOHAN ROORYCK: Yes, well, next week I’m going to Toluca in Mexico. So my dance card is quite full in the next few weeks, as my wife always reminds me. So I’m going to Toluca in Mexico to talk at the [INAUDIBLE] and that’s where I want to bring these things to the table. I think one of the problems for the funders is how do we contribute to [INAUDIBLE] like [INAUDIBLE] and like [INAUDIBLE] Because those are non-commercial, very often non-commercial enterprises.

[00:29:47.62] And in my view, one of the problems that we’re currently experiencing is that not only we have an un-clarity with respect to the services offered by commercial publishers but also a certain un-clarity with respect to the services that are offered by non-commercial publishers. So I think there should be an effort, because the non-commercial publishers are often funded by block grants from governments by the goodwill of a couple of volunteers. Also from university, out of universities, and so on. So it’s a little bit hard for these initiatives as well to give full transparency on their costings.

[00:30:30.44] The last thing, of course, funders would want is that funders would end up only funding gold open access fees and not be funding these non-commercial publishers. So I think there should be an effort to try and get these costs and prices and services more transparently established so that at least for funders could just as easily support a publisher in the north as a non-commercial publisher in the south. That’s my personal take on this, and that’s also something that I’ll try to discuss next week.

[00:31:16.53] AUDIENCE: Hello. My name is [INAUDIBLE], and I speak for MDPI. I didn’t have a chance to talk earlier in the previous session, because the questions were sent in advance. So they were discussing a lot about accelerating open access new models, all the challenges that societies have been encountering and the publishers, and obviously nobody thought about inviting to the panel an open access publisher that has been driving the open access model. We published this year 72,000 papers.

[00:31:57.70] We are way ahead any other fully open access publisher. Nobody thought about Frontiers, MDPI, OK, [INAUDIBLE] was there. We are embracing Plan S, obviously, and we find it– my colleague was saying she– it’s not easy for open access publishers, maybe [INAUDIBLE]. It is easy for us and Frontiers. We are a very sustainable publisher. We rely entirely on APCs. So I’m just telling the societies, it’s not difficult. Just be brave. Try. Come and talk to us. Nobody talks to us. They talk to their current publishers. It’s very difficult for me.

[00:32:48.40] JOHAN ROORYCK: I talk to you.

[00:32:49.54] [LAUGHTER] [00:32:51.07] AUDIENCE: And I want to continue the discussion. We want to help you. We want to help cOAlition S to promote this model in the US, in Japan, in Asia. So this is–

[00:33:02.65] JOHAN ROORYCK: That would be great.

[00:33:03.49] AUDIENCE: I just wanted to be a bit more positive and tell the people that it’s possible to do the transition to open access. And you’re not going to die. So thank you.

[00:33:18.22] AUDIENCE: Very briefly, and I will come to Plan S, but firstly to say [INAUDIBLE] for some time has been the largest fully open access publisher. So on our panel this morning, we aimed to represent publishers that came to the question from different angles. There was never an intention to allow every publisher to be on the panel, because that’s not possible in a session.

[00:33:41.93] And I’d also just clarify a little bit I never said open access wasn’t easy. I said being a fully open access publisher didn’t mean that we had every question answered. And I think that’s something that really brings it back to your talk, which I really enjoyed this morning.

[00:34:00.10] So I would just be interested to hear how you see– because I really do think it’s important for us to acknowledge that even though it’s great working at an open access publisher, that we have a lot of questions still to address. To address things like [INAUDIBLE] is raising, inequities in the system, make sure that open access is available for everybody. And I just wonder what your thoughts are on how those of us at different points of an open access transition can embrace the challenges that are still there for us.

[00:34:34.12] JOHAN ROORYCK: You mean as a publisher or as an author? I’m not sure.

[00:34:37.09] AUDIENCE: Either, actually. I mean, I suppose I’m asking as a publisher, but I think–

[00:34:42.88] JOHAN ROORYCK: But which are the challenges that you see?

[00:34:45.86] AUDIENCE: So I think if I pick something quite specific–

[00:34:49.60] JOHAN ROORYCK: Please do.

[00:34:51.01] AUDIENCE: Thinking of a lot of the business models that exist at the moment involve people paying to publish. I know you have cited examples of publishers that don’t work in that way. And I think that is something that does create a challenge, both for funders and for authors that don’t have funding to cover their– the funds to cover the publication of their research, whether that’s because they’re coming from the global south or whether they’re from research fields that are less well funded or early career researchers who are establishing their careers. Just would be interested in your thoughts about how we can [INAUDIBLE].

[00:35:32.23] JOHAN ROORYCK: I mean, the reason Plan S [INAUDIBLE] provision for waivers, I mean, that you know that we ask publishers to provide waivers for people from the global south, from a very specific set of countries where there’s really no funding available for this purpose. And, of course, this is a cost or a price or a service. I should be careful. I’ve learned to be careful about these terms. But this is a service that you can count in the transparency cost. I mean, you can calculate.

[00:36:02.29] You could calculate for a journal what the cost would be to accommodate those authors and then ask– like in a pay forward system, the other authors to the journal to contribute to that. That would certainly be acceptable. Now, that’s not going to work in every case, but it is certainly one way to move forward, at least for those authors.

[00:36:27.94] I also think that we need to be, perhaps, more creative about payment systems in the future. Once the libraries flip, there should be more money available to help these things. But I don’t have answers. I don’t have answers to everything here. I mean, really, I really don’t. These are things that are really a work in progress. But at least I think the waivers and seeing those waivers as part of the cost of doing business and then really calculate it into the APCs that the authors have to pay is certainly one way that would help moving things forward.

[00:37:20.79] AUDIENCE: I’m [INAUDIBLE]. I am coming from University of [INAUDIBLE] in Croatia. I don’t know if Croatia is global south or global east or west or not.

[00:37:31.80] JOHAN ROORYCK: Firmly north of the equator.

[00:37:35.22] AUDIENCE: Yes we in Croatia are in a similar situation as global south. And so the system is the government supporting scholarly journals, and we have a common platform which is hosting now approximately 400 open access journals, which are not charging authors APCs.

[00:37:56.64] JOHAN ROORYCK: Great. [INAUDIBLE] compliant.

[00:37:59.71] AUDIENCE: Yeah. But I’m really glad that you mentioned that Plan S, and thank you for this comprehensive presentation. We’ll support also this non-commercial part of scholarly publishing. Because for now, all actually messages coming from European Commission and all funds which were distributed, they’re actually covering APCs. So we never get any kind of support. Yes, and it’s–

[00:38:30.14] JOHAN ROORYCK: But, again, these aren’t ideas that I’m developing as we go. I mean, I think this cost– the question really is, how do you make the costs transparent to any funder? Because authors sometimes have access to funding, but yeah, you have to make it transparent. And until now, platforms like yours have never really done that, made those costs transparent for the outside, because they thought, well, we’ll do it ourselves, [INAUDIBLE].

[00:38:58.52] AUDIENCE: It’s mostly based on voluntary job. Yes, yeah. But I will end just with that it’s really– so the government now cut the subsidizes for journals in half, approximately. And comparing how much we are paying for subscriptions with how much we are subsidizing creation journals, it’s a huge disproportion. And thank you for considering such kind of scholarly publishing environment which are really specific. And we hope that will get kind of supported in the future.

[00:39:40.96] JOHAN ROORYCK: Will do.

[00:39:46.07] AUDIENCE: Hi. Kathryn Spiller from Jisc. So my role is to work with small society publishers to develop these transformative agreements and pilots, two of whom have spoken over the last couple of days. I wanted to get your view on a change in my mind since I’ve started to do this job, which is we talk about flipping journals, but there’s been mention from both Portland Press and Microbiology Society of actually a more practical way of flipping seems to be by territory, by institution rather than by individual journal. And I wanted to get your thoughts on that.

[00:40:29.85] JOHAN ROORYCK: Flipping by territory?

[00:40:31.60] AUDIENCE: Yeah, so rather than taking a journal and flipping it to completely OA, you’re taking the community and a country, in the UK, for example, and through a transformative deal flipping the full output to OA. But you’re doing it by country, country by country, not journal by journal.

[00:40:55.72] JOHAN ROORYCK: Both strategies are compatible with Plan S, I believe. So the transformative agreement arrangement is one that aims at library and library consortia. So those library consortia can be nationally organized or they can be internationally organized. So that would address that.

[00:41:17.68] And the other way we– the other route we support towards the transition to open access is the transformative journal route. So that’s really one journal that flips and that shows in the course of flipping that year on year, there’s an increase in OA content. And there is a final goal in which to flip will be completed. Does that answer your question?

[00:41:41.35] AUDIENCE: Yes, I think so. And in terms of the transformative journal, is there a percentage tipping point that you’d want to see?

[00:41:50.20] JOHAN ROORYCK: Yes, definitely. There is. I mean, it’s not written in stone. I mean, some people in the organization have calculated that at around 50%, there is a tipping point where it becomes no longer economically viable to keep both systems in place, both subscription and open access. And then it simply makes economic sense to flip it completely to open access. I mean, that may or may not be right. That’s a kind of a back of the envelope calculation. You would have to run more real life calculations about that. But 50%, 60%. Anything is acceptable as long as there is a commitment that at some percentage point, the flip will be completed.

[00:42:36.42] AUDIENCE: OK, thank you.

[00:42:44.94] AUDIENCE: Pippa Smart, the Editor of the ALPSP Journal Learned Publishing. Thank you very much for your presentation. One comment that I would just like to make is, of course, the conversation here is very much about money and the cost of flipping from one business model to another.

[00:43:01.20] JOHAN ROORYCK: That’s also what most people are scared of.

[00:43:03.21] AUDIENCE: Absolutely. But I work independently with a lot of publishers in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, as well as in the emerging regions. And if I would just– one question and one plea I would like to make to cOAlition S and to the development of the plan is considering the license agreements and the technological requirements which are embedded within the plan. Creative Commons licenses, whilst lovely, because they’re nice and simple, are fairly crude.

[00:43:32.58] And a lot of the journals that I’m working with, the editors and the publishers and the authors, are very nervous about the completely open license that’s being imposed. And part of the reason for that is whilst they want people to be able to access and use their content, and many of the journals are already publishing freely accessible content, they want to be able to track use of that content, and they want to also be able to prevent misuse of that content, and they feel that the CC-BY license doesn’t protect them in that respect. So that’s just one thing I would like to ask the cOAlition S and the planners to consider.

[00:44:07.86] JOHAN ROORYCK: OK. I’ll keep that in mind, because yeah. Do you have any solutions for that? How do you track? How do you– I mean, since you bring up the problem.

[00:44:20.18] AUDIENCE: Ah, but you’re there for the solution. [LAUGHS] [00:44:23.19] JOHAN ROORYCK: I’m glad to implement one if one is offered to me.

[00:44:25.55] AUDIENCE: I would hope for a more subtle license agreement. For example, non-commercial reuse with a better definition of non-commercial reuse. Because I think a lot of people would feel more comfortable with that.

[00:44:42.92] JOHAN ROORYCK: I’ll take that up. Can you write to me about that so that I can– please do.

[00:44:46.72] AUDIENCE: I would be very happy to. Thank you. And if you would like to write for the journal, we would love that as well.

[00:44:52.35] [LAUGHTER] [00:44:57.44] AUDIENCE: Hello, and Anthony Watkinson. As an author of Pippa’s, I am very pleased to hear her say that. I work for an independent research group, academic research group, called Cyber Research. We’ve written a lot on the attitudes and practices of early career researchers. Now, what will horrify people here is that most of them, 99%, probably 95%, have never heard of DORA and don’t know what DORA is. Most people here will be very supportive of DORA, as indeed I am. Publishers in general are supportive of DORA.

[00:45:42.97] Early career researchers are faced by the difficulties of getting published in journals. They’re also faced with a problem of getting grants in order to live. Grants are more important to them, actually. They think if they publish in highly ranked journals, they’re more likely to get grants. What I don’t know is what the– and you will know probably– is what the funders are doing to monitor the way the people on the panels who give the grants are sticking to DORA. They sign these things. Is the management at these big funders enforcing DORA? How do they do it?

[00:46:30.14] JOHAN ROORYCK: Well, the honest answer is I don’t know. I mean, I only know a couple of practices. I mean, I don’t speak for all the funders and for the practices they–

[00:46:36.67] AUDIENCE: No, but you know more about them than we do.

[00:46:38.65] JOHAN ROORYCK: Do I?

[00:46:39.24] AUDIENCE: You must do. You work for them.

[00:46:43.09] JOHAN ROORYCK: I’ve been [INAUDIBLE] for 11 days. [INAUDIBLE] [00:46:48.73] AUDIENCE: I couldn’t have asked–

[00:46:50.77] JOHAN ROORYCK: I’m not omniscient. But I do know of a couple of good practices. One good practice, for instance, is what NWO in Holland, a national science funder in Holland, has been doing with early career researchers for grants. And I know because my own PhD students apply for those grants and they show me the forms they have to fill out, and they ask me for advice.

[00:47:17.36] And what has changed there I find extremely encouraging, namely the form is now written in such a way that the applicants can no longer just simply append their CV, but they have to provide a narrative. So they have to say, look, they cannot provide the impact factor of the journal, and they’re asked to give their five best papers and say why they think these are the five best papers.

[00:47:49.88] And that, I think, is a radical change with the form. Because, I mean, the applicant is given a chance to develop a narrative about their own performance. And this qualitative analysis is something that the people on the panel have to take into account. And I think that radically changes–

[00:48:10.96] AUDIENCE: That’s good news, good news.

[00:48:12.70] JOHAN ROORYCK: And I really think that this is an excellent development that should be taken up by many funders across the world. This was the initiative of one person at NWO who took it upon himself to implement [INAUDIBLE].

[00:48:24.91] AUDIENCE: But my question, I suppose, is–

[00:48:26.82] JOHAN ROORYCK: For NWO, no. I don’t know for the others.

[00:48:29.17] AUDIENCE: But will the funders impose these things on themselves in the Plan S plans, in the cOAlition S? It’d be good if they did.

[00:48:40.16] JOHAN ROORYCK: I agree with you that it would be good if they did. But like I said, we are at the beginning of this conversation. The DORA principles have just been accepted by Plan S and by the Plan S funders. It’s a whole different conversation to implement that into forms. I mean, NW has taken the lead in that, I think. I really hope that that’s an example of best practice that would be adopted as quickly as possible by all the funders.

[00:49:04.12] AUDIENCE: Thank you very much, and I congratulate you on your very open discussion.

[00:49:10.98] JOHAN ROORYCK: Thank you.

[00:49:24.70] AUDIENCE: I have a question. I’m responding to your point about the changing role of libraries. And you mentioned that, well, I think I heard you say that books no longer exist in that context. And I might have misheard.

[00:49:35.26] JOHAN ROORYCK: Did I say that? Books no longer exist?

[00:49:37.50] AUDIENCE: That’s how I heard it.

[00:49:38.41] JOHAN ROORYCK: Oh my God.

[00:49:40.24] AUDIENCE: Given that, I’d just be really interested in–

[00:49:42.52] JOHAN ROORYCK: Did I say that?

[00:49:44.80] AUDIENCE: Anything you can say about your– how you see the cOAlition S and Plan S playing out in the book publishing world given the importance of books still to a lot of academic communities.

[00:49:54.64] JOHAN ROORYCK: Books are important, they are just, right now they are not a priority. I mean, there is an explicit mention also in Plan S that a solution for books has to be developed after 2022, I believe. So that is a problem that has been kicked down the road. I think it’s a little bit unfortunate, especially because I come from the humanities, and in the humanities, people write a lot of books.

[00:50:20.10] The unit of currency in many disciplines, for instance history or even literary studies, the currency is a book, not the article. So I regret that a little bit. But it’s also the case that for the vast majority of books, there is a very simple solution, which I discussed with [INAUDIBLE] many times. I mean, she says that most books, 80% of books, are actually volumes, collected volumes of collected articles.

[00:50:51.16] And for those books, you could simply apply the same system as for the APC. You pay an APC per article. So a collected volume of 10 articles gives you 10 APCs. That’s it. That’s where you recoup your costs. So that’s certainly a solution. It’s not a solution for monographs, that’s true. So for monographs, you still have to be a little bit creative.

[00:51:13.57] But if you look at the total volume of books being produced, that’s probably a relatively small minority. And then you can probably think up a solution for monographs that is a derivative of the APC that you ask for collected volumes. That’s one of the thoughts that [INAUDIBLE] has been developing and that I think is a good solution for the problem of books. But in the end, I mean, this is not something that is being addressed immediately, because it’s not being seen as an immediate priority of Plan S but something that will come– that will be developed a few years from now.

[00:51:53.16] AUDIENCE: Thanks.

[00:51:56.74] AUDIENCE: Sorry. It’s quite loud. A question about, especially in scientific publishing, there are a lot of things that go along with the article. Code, data, software, et cetera. And the CC license seems to apply well, or depending on your perspective, applies to text, et cetera. But with respect to software data, oftentimes those are different sorts of licensing questions or access.

[00:52:21.50] So what are the thoughts of the coalition around that sort of thing? Because they don’t seem to– you’re not going to be able to apply the same rules to very different objects, and it’s also sort of related to the question about the books, et cetera.

[00:52:35.63] JOHAN ROORYCK: We simply haven’t developed thoughts about that. And actually, I would welcome any suggestion you have there, because clearly that needs to be refined in the future for the specific types of content creation you mentioned. I mean, we want to be flexible. It’s not a one size fits all. But those have to be justified exceptions. If it’s well argued for, we will listen, I believe. But then, again, you have to start from a very strong perspective, which is the CC-BY license. And then you look on a case by case basis what other needs are out there to be addressed.

[00:53:19.95] AUDIENCE: Hi, Peter Berkery from New Association University Presses. I know you’ve said you’ve only been on the job for 11 days, so I don’t want to ask you too granular a question. But–

[00:53:30.69] [LAUGHTER] [00:53:33.64] [INAUDIBLE] statistic that 80% of books are contributed volumes and that monographs are only a small minority of the books published in the ecosystem–

[00:53:43.65] JOHAN ROORYCK: This is what my information.

[00:53:45.58] AUDIENCE: Yeah, do we know where that statistic came from?

[00:53:51.68] AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] [00:53:56.54] AUDIENCE: OK.

[00:53:57.13] JOHAN ROORYCK: Also, [INAUDIBLE].

[00:53:59.59] AUDIENCE: That’s probably not the experience of the 151 members of my association.

[00:54:05.86] JOHAN ROORYCK: It’s probably not the experience of university presses, indeed. That’s probably [INAUDIBLE]. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But the end, I mean, have to come up with solutions. There must be solutions for this. Even books can be published natively in open access. We had a panel on that yesterday, I believe. So there’s also transformation that is needed there, and we are certainly open to any suggestions you could make.

[00:54:35.32] AUDIENCE: Hi.

[00:54:35.73] JOHAN ROORYCK: Sorry.

[00:54:37.92] AUDIENCE: Steven Inchcoombe from Springer Nature. I’ve already had more than my fair share, so I’m going to keep the question very short. You talk about flipping of journals. I think there was a reference earlier to possibly countries and institutions flipping rather than journals flipping. I would say that however we transition, we need the demand and the supply side in synchronization.

[00:55:09.13] And at the moment, those of us on the supply side, and I think many, many, many in the room, perhaps different from some years ago, but many of us in the room really want to make this transition work. But the demand side isn’t there. One aspect is the researchers and their measurement systems, which the funders have a very large role in defining, isn’t conducive to encourage them to open access. But the biggest is that most of the funding agencies in the world today are not on this path with you.

[00:55:45.08] JOHAN ROORYCK: Well, it’s my mission to change that.

[00:55:47.05] AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] my question. How much of your mission is reaching out to them as well as the great job you’re doing in reaching out to us as publishers?

[00:55:54.85] JOHAN ROORYCK: Well, this is actually my– it was made very clear to me that it’s my priority to visit these funders and to make more funders join. So that’s what I’m going to use my time for in the next year. To fly around the world and convince other funders.

[00:56:12.21] AUDIENCE: That’s brilliant.

[00:56:12.64] JOHAN ROORYCK: We are already talking to many funders around the world. I mean, many of our executive steering group members are talking to, and we have a plan to talk to the funders and convince them that it’s a good idea to join the coalition.

[00:56:28.16] AUDIENCE: Could I just suggest that then, because many publishers have a lot probably more data, actually, in my experience than the funders do themselves.

[00:56:36.61] JOHAN ROORYCK: Please do share that with us. We would love to.

[00:56:39.20] AUDIENCE: Can we help you in that?

[00:56:41.22] JOHAN ROORYCK: By all means. Tell me where to go. I’ll fly.

[00:56:45.32] AUDIENCE: Thank you very much.

[00:56:45.89] JOHAN ROORYCK: Yes, please do. Yes.

[00:56:48.01] AUDIENCE: [INAUDIBLE] [00:56:53.32] AUDIENCE: Hello. Rod Cookson, IWA Publishing. Over here. I’ll wave. [INAUDIBLE] [00:56:58.72] JOHAN ROORYCK: The problem is that there are these lights shining in my eye, so I can’t make you out very well.

[00:57:04.03] AUDIENCE: Thanks very much for a very interesting talk. My question follows Stephen’s somewhat. You mentioned 50% or 60% as a percentage where a journal might flip, and I think lots of publishers in the room are working on read and publish deals and are very keen to go that route. It’s a lot of work to do read and publish deals, and it’s quite slow. But I don’t think it takes a lot of publishers in this room to 50% or 60%.

[00:57:28.75] If there was a way that hybrid open access could be sanitized within Plan S, there could be an approved version so that that transitional device could still exist. I think it would make it easier for a lot of publishers to move forward quicker. I think the removal of hybrid is actually a bit of a retardant on progress towards open access for many publishers.

[00:57:52.54] JOHAN ROORYCK: Why?

[00:57:54.34] AUDIENCE: Because the question is how do you get–

[00:57:56.23] JOHAN ROORYCK: I mean, hybrid really has not helped. I mean, hybrid has become an end point. And this is why there was this very visceral reaction, I think, both on the part of open access activists and defenders against hybrid. Hybrid became a sort of fixed point and became the source of double dipping. And that is why there was this very strong reaction against it. The transformative agreement wants to take hybrid and move it beyond that point of stasis where it got stuck.

[00:58:30.97] AUDIENCE: And we understand the reservation.

[00:58:34.26] JOHAN ROORYCK: But so what’s the problem?

[00:58:36.24] AUDIENCE: Say if for a publisher like us, if we had read and publish deals with all of the Plan S funders today, maybe we’d be at 25% or 30%, but we’re not close enough. And we are practically flipping journals. We flipped one in 2017. We’re flipping one of our biggest journals next year. But to get beyond 25%, 30%, there need to be other mechanisms. And if there’s a way that hybrid can be–

[00:59:02.46] JOHAN ROORYCK: Yeah, I don’t think the answer is–

[00:59:04.44] AUDIENCE: Perhaps some parameters, some framing. There are some discussions about this, but if it can be sanitized, perhaps, is the right word. That would be helpful.

[00:59:11.38] JOHAN ROORYCK: What would your proposal be?

[00:59:13.42] AUDIENCE: There’s a discussion going on with some questions like, how do you manage [INAUDIBLE] double dipping piece? How do you try and balance that with hybrid? If there could be a formula for approved hybrid, I think it would make it easier for people to make the transition that’s going on.

[00:59:31.06] JOHAN ROORYCK: As you know, the coalition is very strongly against hybrid. So we would have to see the proposal.

[00:59:34.69] AUDIENCE: I understand.

[00:59:35.81] JOHAN ROORYCK: There’s also, of course, not just to funders. I mean, there’s also the transformative agreements that are being [INAUDIBLE]. Because a lot of the money, most of the money, is actually locked up in subscriptions in the libraries. I mean, if we were able to find a mechanism to easily change that money. OA 2020 is one way of doing that, I think, has found one way of doing that.

[00:59:55.72] Transformative agreements is the one that is proposed and developed by Lorraine and Alicia are another one. But there may also be other mechanisms of realizing that. And I think cOAlition S is very much willing to consider building infrastructures for doing that. I mean, I’ve been thinking about a couple of ideas, but maybe this is not the right time to discuss them. But clearly, the funders are not the only source of income for the publishers.

[01:00:23.09] The main source of income, I think, is still the libraries. And there is the problem of the mismatch. Because the mismatch is on the one hand, you have the libraries who pay for the subscriptions now are not the same people who will pay for the APCs later on. And so how do you how do you address that mismatch?

[01:00:43.81] That, I think, is one of the challenges that you and we are facing. Because we have to find a solution together. What we call that, whether we call that a [INAUDIBLE] hybrid or anything else, it doesn’t matter. We have to find a mechanism to get things moving again from the stasis where hybrid is stuck, in my view.

[01:01:06.50] AUDIENCE: I agree. And if there are more tools, I think we can move forward faster.

[01:01:09.89] JOHAN ROORYCK: Yes, yes, definitely.

[01:01:13.23] AUDIENCE: Patrick Alexander from Penn State University Press. And first of all, this was fascinating. I came to this meeting just to learn about Plan S, and I apologize for my ignorance. It’s been very, very enlightening and helpful. But I don’t mean this sarcastic. It’s going to sound like it. Is there a business plan for Plan S?

[01:01:35.70] In other words, you mentioned that libraries will play a key role in converting subscription funds to open access payment. Is there data about how much money they will be paying, how much funding will be available, dollars and cents, costs and revenue? Is there an actual business plan?

[01:01:54.57] JOHAN ROORYCK: No. It’s a short answer.

[01:01:57.38] AUDIENCE: All right. Thanks.

[01:01:58.05] JOHAN ROORYCK: Not that I know. The idea is if the research is funded by a funder, they will have to make sure that all of their publications are in open access, and the funder is willing to pay for it. So the funders have usually very deep pockets. So they will write those costs into the grants that they give to the researchers.

[01:02:19.36] So that’s, if you like, the best business plan. But you can write that on– you can say that in a couple of sentences. But that’s the idea. So that will be counted into the budgets of the participating funders. Is that enough of an answer? You wanted more of a business plan. But Plan S is not a business plan. It’s not a model. It’s not a commercial model. It’s a catalyst for change.

[01:02:47.51] AUDIENCE: Thank you very much.

[01:02:49.68] SARAH GREAVES: I think John deserves another round of applause before [INAUDIBLE].

[01:02:52.83] [APPLAUSE] [01:02:57.33] [MUSIC PLAYING]