Wileyexecutiveseminar.com



Transcription?Wiley Society Executive Virtual Seminar?Global Research Policy And Open Access: Where Are We Now?MS. EHLER:Hello, everyone.Welcome to day two.Just wait a fewmoments as we get gathered as people comein.Hello, again, everybody.I'm AnnaEhler.I'm the associate director in ourPartner Engagement team at Wiley as partof the team that's responsible forputting together the Society ExecutiveSeminar event.So it's really a pleasure to welcomeyou all here today.We're so grateful tohave your time in what I know is acrowded virtual meeting environment.Weall spend so much time on Zoom, so wereally appreciate you spending some timewith us today.And if you joined us yesterday forany of the sessions, I hope you enjoyedthose as well.A couple of housekeeping remindersbefore we get into the kick-off sessionfor today.All the attendees are muted.So if you have a question, or if you havea technical issue, please put yourquestions on technical issues in thechat, or feel free to just say hellothere.When you say hello, other peoplewho are attending can see your name andmay say hello, in turn.Also, feel free to just put commentsor reactions as we go through thesession.I know we're all missing thatin-person engagement.So it's -- it'snice to see everybody in the chat.If you have a question for thespeakers as we go, please put those inthe Q&A box, and we'll have plenty oftime for questions at the end of thesession.But please do keep yourquestions coming in, as we go, as theyoccur to you.If you haven't already, I doencourage everyone to check out theonline event guide.The URL for that isup on the screen.There you can see information aboutall the attendees, their bios, the slidesfrom yesterday and today, moreinformation about our speakers, as wellas some supplementary information aboutwhat we're going to go over today.All the sessions are being recordedand those will be available on demand.So if you weren't able to join yesterdayor if you can't stay for all of today,know that you'll get the link to see thesessions after the fact.And before we go into today'ssession, I do want to note, we've had aslight change of speakers.So KathrynSharples isn't able to join us, but wehave Kaia Motter from Kathryn's team.Sowe're really grateful that she was ableto step in.So welcome, Kaia.So this morning's session's, GlobalResearch Policy and Open Access:Whereare we now?We talked a little bit about openaccess yesterday.They touched on that,and the acceleration and the changeswe're seeing, and funders of policiesthat have been coming out.So we're going to spend a lot moretime on that today.In this session andin the following session we'll have somecase studies to share.Today to take us through the globalresearch policy landscape, we have AndrewTein, who's VP of government affairs atWiley.And as head of government affairs,he works with government agencies andfunders to advance public-privatepartnerships in scientific research,higher ed, and in workforce upscaling.And he's been working with funders onopen access now for a decade in policydevelopment and implementation.Soreally excited to have him here with ustoday.And Kaia, as publisher in our openresearch team at Wiley, is responsiblefor advising on open access, strategy,and development, and policy, as well asgrowing our open research business inhealth sciences.So welcome again, Kaia.And with that, I'm going to hand itover to our speakers.MR. TEIN:Thanks, Anna.Good morning, everyone.Goodafternoon.I'm Andrew Tein.It's greatfor Kaia and I to be here with you,especially now that we know the fate ofthe free world is looking just a littlemore positive.Now that we have the ability to lookahead into the future, our goal today isto filter through the noise of Plan Sannouncements and the vote counts tosituate all of us in the global policycontext; primarily, a green and goldapproaches to open access, and alongsidethat, our collective strategy, Wiley,alongside with you, to engageproactively.And that's what Kaia'sgoing to cover.Because that is what is enabling asustained transition to open access thatsupports our communities and the researchecosystem at large.Let me just drive the slides forwardfor a moment.There we go.And you'll see this is a little bithow we're structuring the session.We'regoing to dive into the US and UK/Europe.It is now time that we have to do theslash, given Brexit, as proxy for greenand gold.And what's new is how they arepushing and pulling against each other asthey never have before.China is an outlier somewhat.Obviously, one we have to pay attentionto given their scale and their role inglobal science.And, of course, our activeengagement together and planning,including through transitional agreementsas part of our toolbox, to ensure we'removing forward in a way that issustainable but driving towards thecommon goal of enabling open access andopen science.So I know we have organizations fromboth sides of the pond.We have to notonly monitor but engage on all fronts.Maybe that's the challenging part, butI'm here to tell you from us at Wileywe're here to be your guides and yourpartners.So with that, let me take us to alittle tour of the world since none of usare able to do that physically.What this map really tells you isthat we're in a push and pull betweengreen versus gold open access.Green ispredominant.And the reason why, is thatfunding and political will is limited.You know, just to remind, brightgreen means that there is no additionalfunding to make an article funded bypublic or some sort of funded researchfreely available online.Typically, what enables green tosustain us as publishers in the societieswho are doing and investing the work toensure the quality of research, is theembargo period.And we're going to talk a bit moreabout how that embargo period is playingout, especially as we see in the greenmodel is bumping up into gold.I think within this map, yes, we --we had the world.You're seeing -- thedarker green meaning that there are greenenforced policies, the brighter greenmeaning that there are policies but we'renot seeing a lot of enforcement, and thenthe gold, of course, the markets that arepursuing gold open access.This is not so much asking you tolook at each market, but really just seethe dynamic interplay between green andgold.And so that's why today we'refocusing on the US, UK and Europe, andChina.And we're going to talk aboutwhat that all means.So, first, let's take a bit of alook at the US in the green context, andgreen overall, right?We have been on a decade-longjourney.And I think of it as the firstwave of OA.It really began with the NIHpolicy in 2008.Right where the requestwas that, through legislation, articleswould be made publicly available12 months after publication.And thatwould be made freely available.The Obama administration in 2013soon built on that with what we call theOSTP memo.The OSTP being the Office ofScience and Technology Policy.Thatexpanded the NIH policy across everymajor federal research agency.And then you see the pick-up byother major research markets; China,Canada -- Australia is not on here, butJapan.A real shift in that growth ingreen.And then I would say as we thinkabout the first decade -- really, if youlook at the timeline in the OSTP memo,it's only been the past few years thatthe policies have been in place.But I think given the role of Europeand given the role of advocates, there'simpatience for action.And that is whereyou saw, starting in 2018, the arrival ofPlan S, right?The coalition thatdemanded immediate open access by 2020,which became 2021.It didn't just come out of nowhere.I want that to be clear.It built onmomentum in the EU.And I think one ofvery new things was that in -- beginningin 2018, under the Trump administration,the Office of Science and TechnologyPolicy also began to think about, oh,hum, that model in Europe; hum, thatmomentum of cOAlition S; maybe we shouldbe considering that for the US.Whatcould possibly go wrong?Needless to say, there's a lot to gowrong, and I'm going to talk more aboutthat as we dive into US.But I thinkit's important to think about thetimeline.We've gone through a decade,especially one where green open accesspolicies were launched.And now peopleare looking -- policymakers are lookingfor it for the next direction.So what does that look like?Ithink it's important to situate us backin the green and the gold.So Europe,through cOAlition S, trying to pull theworld in the direction as a specificversion of immediate open access.Keeping in mind that they might havea lot of bluster and are good at issuingpress releases and are good at usingsocial media, but they are encounteringtheir own challenges and setbacks in theprocess, including -- mutiny might be anoverstatement, but some pushback from theresearch community in the process.That said, these policy pressuresand concerns from the European side arefiltering into the US policyconversation.However, we do believe, for the timebeing, the US, alongside China and India,which have well established green openaccess policies, to have some stayingpower.So some mixed ecosystem as wecontinue to engage on both sides.And byengage, I mean very specifically step upwith transitional agreements, includingin addition to growing our goldsportfolios among other options.One other thing that you see on thisslide is the notion of multilateralpressure.I would say, honestly, thatunder the Trump administration, I wouldnot be that concerned with howmultilateral organizations and positionsthey take affect US policy.That, undera new regime, can and will change.And so one example is UNESCO, whichhas issued an open science recommendationand is continuing to develop a globalvoluntary approach to policy.But theseare all cogs that work around each other,right, so we need to be paying attention.So mixed ecosystem, more fluidityacross markets, and green and goldapproaches than ever before, vigilanceand engagement.That's kind of some ofthe key storylines here.Let me take us into the US.Obviously, before we dive into the openaccess view, we have to acknowledge theUS presidential election and some of itsimplications.I'm not going to go into a lot ofdetail now since it's in its early days,but as they say, a picture is worth athousand words.Maybe a million isbetter.Overall, I think we can state,emphatically, that Joe Biden's victory atthe presidential level is a win for thoseof us engaged in supporting globalresearch.What are we watching and engaging onas the transition begins?A few things.First and foremost, robust funding forscience.The Biden campaign, as well asdemocratic policymakers, have beenproposing a $300 billion increase in R&Dacross four years.Now, the proof is in the pudding, asthey say.And we'll have to see.A lotwill depend on how the US Senate shakesout from a leadership perspective givenrunoffs in the State of Georgia.So that will make or break, in someways, how quickly the Bidenadministration can pursue federal policy.The other thing that we're lookingat are agency governments.And therehave been some really interestingproposals; a new advanced research agencyfor health.This would be alongside, notin addition to NIH; new leadership atNIH, given the current director's timewith NIH.And then the National ScienceFoundation full reform of this verylarge, multidisciplinary agency.So more on that, we will be watchingcarefully and keeping you apprised ofupdates.And more importantly, makingsure we're channeling your voice andconcerns as we start to engage the newadministration.So as we think about the US, we weresurprised, right, in 2018 when -- afterthe formation of cOAlition S.We heardrumblings of the Office of Science andTechnology Policy under the Trumpadministration considering a change tothe well-established functioning greenopen access policy with a 12-monthembargo.We had a very vigorous debate with alot of support and engagement from all ofyou, succeeded and ensuring that thatpolicy was not rushed through.And to be clear, the administrationwas pursuing an effort to push it throughwithout consultation in an executiveorder.We know that very clearly now.What happens now under the Bidenadministration?Well, of course we don'tknow yet.I think we have some cleardata points that give us optimism that wewill be able to engage very -- in aconsultative way to shape some, if any,changes to the policy.Those data points are, in general,the consultative engagement we've hadwith Vice President Biden and his time,but also with his campaign and transitionteam already.I think the other is that, althoughVice President Biden, President ElectBiden, was quite supportive of openaccess, very clear about it, as he ledthe Cancer Moonshot initiative in hisdays as vice president, that it was alsoclear he understood the importance ofpublishing and a strong, vibrant researchecosystem.So the threat doesn't go away.Itnever would have, regardless of who won.I think the point is we have a morestable outlook for engagement.And alongside the OSTP and the WhiteHouse, we have Congress.Where, again,thanks to really strong engagement acrossWiley and with many of our Societypartners, have allies there who want tosee us move forward in a sustainable way.I think one of the things -- again,back to the flywheel as we transition toEurope, right, and the UK, Plan S and howthat moves forward will have a bearing onhow the US and policymakers think aboutopen access.So continued engagement in the US isimportant.We have to, also, be engagedon the other side of the pond, even justfrom the narrow US perspective.So Europe and the UK.Plan S, to beclear -- and you heard me say this, a lotof fanfare, a lot of great use of socialmedia, they know how to make a statement.I think the important thing to rememberabout Plan S, or a few important thingsare, it didn't come out of nowhere.TheEuropean union had made a declarationabout achieving open access by 2020, theOA2020 plan.It didn't say how.The EUitself had some ideas.COAlition S, to remind, is acoalition.It does not have anyimplementing authority.That's not tosay we don't take it seriously, becausethey have some strong engaged fundersunderneath.But they also have manylarge funders who you'd expect to be apart of a Pan-Europe position on openaccess who are not engaged, who are notconvinced.And I think to the point I mentionedearlier about some setbacks that they'vehad -- you know, the European ResearchCouncil, a group that's much morerepresentative of researchers on thefrontlines, have expressed many concernsabout the heavy-handed policies comingout of cOAlition S, preordainedapproaches to how journals should be madeopen access, almost forcing and removingflexibility around academic freedom.I think the latest wrinkle thatwe're all paying attention to is theRights Retention Strategy, which sitsalongside full-funded gold open accesstransitional agreements and creates athird path, and one that we can't accept,of a green policy, zero-month embargo,and very aggressive copyright licenses.So it's essentially; well,transitional agreements, yeah, we likethem, but we don't like paying you.Goldaway, you're moving faster, still notfast enough.We've set a deadlinepublicly of 2021 January.We'll justcreate this new thing called RightsRetention Strategy and expect everybodyto make their content freely availablejust because we're putting some sort oflicense around it.That is the reality of what they'redoing.And that is why we have been veryclear that we're not able to support thispolicy.It is not only as a matter ofprinciple, but the fact, too, again,putting the researchers in a position toimplement the Rights Retention Strategywithout any support, without anylistening to the concerns that they havehad, and certainly not to the concerns ofsocieties.So as we look ahead, you know,January 2021 is around the corner.Weare actively still engaged with cOAlitionS.We want to find a way to support thegoal, but the Rights Retention Strategyis a major concern.I think January 21 will probablycome and go.And that's okay.Becauseas I said, cOAlition S is just acoalition.It does not have implementingauthority.Where we're going to be watching, ofcourse, is how the EU takes it up, whichtends to be pretty supportive of Plan S,and of course the UK.And Kaia is going to talk a littlebit more about how we're engaged in theUK and have a good path for it there.So the path for Plan S is still tobe determined.It is one of thecompeting models.I think they've takena -- made a big tactical mistake inpursuing the Rights Retention Strategy interms of trying to achieve their Januarygoal.We were there at the table, weremain at the table, and trying to find asustainable way forward.And if youthink about the significant growth inopen access across the world, publisherengagement actively leaning in, likeWiley has, is the fastest way tosustainably get to the goals that we alldesire.I'm going to now move forward to abit of a tangent in some way, becauseit's not specifically about open access.And that is to talk about the role ofChina.So to be clear just in terms ofChina and open access, they have a green12-month policy, very much like the US.That is something we can all live with.What is new is last year the Chinesebegan charting sort of a third-waypublishing framework a policy from theMinistry of Science and Technology thatfavor domestic journals by requiringone-third of representative works and aresearcher's main application to bepublished in domestic journals.Why?Depending on who you ask,there was a senior set of stakeholderswho were so annoyed that leading COVIDresearch in foreign journal -- waslanding in foreign journals, that theywanted to push ahead with this approach.I think that that may have been afactor, but the bigger reason is ofcourse, especially given the geopoliticalsituation of the US and China's ownambitions in the world, wanting to bemore sustained as a leading national andcontrolled enterprise in research andinnovation.The other things related to thispolicy, which have -- are still in the --just early days of implementation, theydid set an APC cap of 2,850, roughly, USdollars.This is not being enforced.And I think for all that we know aboutChina and how good they are inenforcement in some areas, and say giventhe size of the research apparatus, thenumber of researchers, they're actuallynot moving forward as quickly as you'dexpect.And there are many reasons to beoptimistic about our overall future inChina, but we're concerned about thisoverall direction.And I should mention, based on ourown portfolio analysis across yourjournals and ours, we believe that thereis minimal impact.Why we are bullish is that China'slatest five-year plan is made very clear;international collaboration on scienceand research will be a key part of howthey engage and move forward.And I think, in general, we knowscience is global.The best science tobe a leader and global science requiresinternational collaboration.And so foreign publishers willcontinue to play a role.We are soengaged and heavily invested in China andworking closely, and wanting to workclosely with you, as you think about yourChina strategy.So I've thrown a lot at you.I'mgoing to hand it over to Kaia to talkabout how our strategy plays with thesedynamics and the US, UK/Europe, andChina, and it's really an active part ofdriving us forward.MS. MOTTER:Okay.Thank youAndrew.So before I launch into the nextsection, I think there was a questionthat came through on the chat aboutdefining green open access and gold openaccess.So very quickly, I just wanted topause to make sure that we're all on thesame page in terms of the understandingof those terms.So gold open access is the authorpays model, the APC model, where thecontent is licensed to the author with aCC license.It's made free immediatelyupon publication.The content is madefree immediately upon publication.And gold open access, one canpublish either in a gold open accessjournal or a hybrid journal as onlineopen or hybrid APC.Green open access is the depositionor the self-archiving of the articles --the author's work in a repository.Sothat activity happens outside of thepublisher's platform.And it is often after an embargoperiod, a delay.So -- and it is not theversion of record, typically.It is thesubmitted or the accepted version of thearticle that is deposited in an archiveor a repository.So those -- that's the distinctionbetween those two terms.So I hopethat's helped.So moving into a little bit more,just, deeper discussion about progress inopen access publishing.Wiley's open access program isrelatively young considering the conceptof open access has, and the businessmodel, have been around for the last 20years.But for those of you who have beenwith us from the beginning, you are nodoubt already aware that our program hasseen significant growth over the lastnine years.In fact, you're probably gettingtired of us yammering on about it all thetime.The rest of the market is alsoperforming well.And according to recentanalysis from Delta Think, as of 2019almost 30 percent of all research outputis published open access.But open access revenues account forjust under ten percent of the overallmarket.According to recent data from theDirectory of Open Access Journals, thereare over 15,000 open access journals incirculation.And according to analysisfrom Delta Think, close to a third ofthose journals are indexed and selectedabstracting and indexing services.A recent report from Simba on openaccess publishing shows that revenuegrowth rates from open access aresignificantly higher than the growthrates we're seeing in subscriptionpublishing, but that is beginning toslow.So as I mentioned, the open accessmovement began about 20 years ago.AndAndrew has spoken earlier about theevolution of the green open accesspolicies.But our timeline starts a little bitlater than that.Our hybrid programkicked off in 2009, but we really didn'tlaunch our first open access journaluntil 2011.In fact, we launched two.Since then, we've flipped our firstjournal from subscription to open accessin 2012.And we introduced our firstread and publish deal in 2017.This isalso when our negotiations with ProjektDEAL kicked off.So from 2017 to 2020 the pace hasreally accelerated.And our commitmentto open access publishing and to openaccess transition has become firmlyestablished.Plan S was announced in late 2018,as we know.And the year after, Wileybecame the first publisher to sign atransformative agreement with ProjektDEAL.So Wiley has been really busythese past couple of years.The agreement with Projekt DEAL wasa watershed moment for Wiley, but it wasalso a watershed moment for thepublishing industry as a whole.And anumber of other transitional ortransformative agreements have followedin quick succession, including ouragreements with Norway, Hungary, Sweden,and Finland.So to summarize, Wiley's approach toopen access and the core activities thathave driven this growth over the past tenyears have focused on these threeapproaches; we've been launching new goldopen access journals.And we now haveover 150 open access journals.And I wanted to point out that closeto 75 percent of those journals areeither joint or fully owned by you, oursociety partners.The development of our OA programhas been driven, in large part, by yourinterest and by the enthusiasm of yourmembership communities.The second prong in our approach hasbeen to convert or to flip journals fromsubscription to open access.And todate, we've flipped over 34 journals.And we will be flipping a further numberof journals, probably seven journals nextyear.And we've also committed to a largerscale transition to open access via ourtransformative agreements.And theseagreements support the publication ofboth gold open access publication andalso hybrid open access.So these three approaches reallyform the bedrock of our approach to openaccess publishing.And we've alreadyseen the impact of these activities.Our open access publication outputcontinues to accelerate, and in manycases, outperform the market.This is a geographic view of theEASC registry of transformativeagreements.And as you can see, the darkblue areas here show where nationalagreements are in place.And the starslocated over the US show where individuallibraries; for example, the CaliforniaDigital Library, Iowa State, and others,have entered into individualtransformative agreements withpublishers.Currently, there are 34 publishersthat have some kind of transformative ortransitional agreement with libraryconsortia spanning 20 countries.Most of Wiley's transformativeagreements have been with funding bodies,government funding bodies, in Northernand Western Europe, which you can seerepresented here within that gold circle.And this is true for other publishers, aswell.But as Andrew mentioned, we'rebeginning to see interest in otherpockets of the world in a transition toOA, including regions like China, theMiddle East, and North America.According to EASC, there are now 150transformative agreements worldwide.Andthis constitutes over 100,000 publishedarticles.And that's an impressive number, butif you look at this color doughnut chartrepresenting each publisher's share ofthe article output, you can see that thelargest proportion of articles sit withSpringer Nature, Wiley, and Elsevier.Now, this doesn't mean that alltransformative agreements are entirelydominated by commercial publishers.There are a number of independentpublishers in the society of publishersentering into transformative agreements,as well.But we have yet to see anytransitional deals in the global south orin low and middle income countries.And to clarify, this doesn't meanthat those conversations aren'thappening.They are.We know they are.But they're being framed in a differentway.And the mechanisms for deliveringOA transition will be different in thoseregions.So in summary, transitionalagreements have been really instrumentalin driving the transition fromsubscription to open access.But we, allalong, have been operating under theassumption that transition doesn't happenovernight.And that some journals andsome markets may never make the fulltransition to gold open access publishingor to transform to a fully gold OAbusiness model.So to finish, I wanted to leave youwith a few key takeaways before we moveinto the Q&A.So I think, as you've heard fromboth me and Andrew, the scholarlycommunications landscape continues toevolve.And we need to be ready torespond and adapt, sometimes quitequickly.We need to be prepared to engage intargeted advocacy when needed.And yourparticipation really does make adifference, and we've seen that over thepast few years.We'll continue to provide briefingson key issues and opportunities fordiscussion, engagement, and actionplanning.You can expect to hear from us onthat -- more on that.For example, weplan to address some of the practicalissues related to the Rights RetentionStrategy.Your membership and authorcommunities are more important than evernow.So let's work together to engagethem and to ensure that the strategies inplace for your journals reflect thegeographical diversity of your subjectdisciplines.China's a key focus, as you've heardfrom Andrew.And many of you have plansto attract more authors and editorialboard members from that region.And thatremains a critical -- criticallyimportant as we look to demonstrate andbuild on the existing value of yourjournals to the research communities inChina.An open access future is a future inwhich the individual article must be thefocus of our attention.I know you'vebeen hearing a lot about thearticle-based economy in the seminar andfrom your contacts at Wiley.And as we continue to progress downthe road to greater openness, we need tokeep our attention focused on making surethat we provide a home for authors topublish their work, whether or not theyhave incremental results or novel orgroundbreaking discoveries.Our approach has never compromisedon quality.So it's a commonmisperception that all open accessjournals are low quality and that theypublish everything that they receive.This is not the case.And we are nevergoing to compromise on publication ethicsor peer-reviewed practices.We have a diverse portfolio of openaccess journals at Wiley.Some applysound science selection criteria, andsome are selectively focused on novelresults.And that's okay.But what we must always keep in theforefront of our minds is the question;are we providing the best possibleservice to our authors?Sometimes this means thinking aboutthe development of referral networksbetween journals or even cascading morecontent.These are the types of servicesthat will enhance service and speed thepath to publication.Publishing open access also meansthat we have to think carefully, not justabout the service we're providing, butalso the value of every single article wepublish.In an environment where both readingand publishing are increasingly paid forfrom institutional budgets that are understrain and have been constrained foryears, and especially now are beingimpacted by COVID and budget constraints,it's time to think carefully aboutwhether or not we're reducing the valueof the subscriptions that we're sellingby making content freely available tothose who do not pay to read.We're fully aware that those who payfor subscriptions are very carefullyreviewing the amount of content that isin front of the paywall, using tools likeunsub.And some of you will probablyhave heard from us already about thisbronze OA -- so-called bronze OAactivities.So in summary, we know that theenvironment that we're in can feelconfusing sometimes, but the scholarlypublication landscape seems to be in aconstant state of flux.And that cancreate uncertainty.But by continuing to serve yourauthors to the best of our sharedability, and by publishing anddisseminating as much good research as wecan, and by recognizing and working toprotect the value that we create, thefuture will remain bright and strong forall of us.Thank you so much.MS. EHLER:Thank you, Kaia.Thankyou, Andrew.I know we have lots of questionsthat have come in.And we have about sixminutes left in the session.So if wedon't get to your question, I hope thatyou're able to come along to the openforum later.We also have your name, sowe can get back to you.But one has come in from FrankKrause, CEO of FASEB, asking; can youcomment on the recent announcement byFOSS with intent to move to aquasi-transitional-like pricing model?MS. MOTTER:I think you may be --this question may be referring to thecommunity action pricing model thatthey're piloting for FOSS biology andFOSS medicine.We're very -- you know, we'relooking at that very closely.And Ithink it's an interesting experiment.Ithink the motivation there is that theyare, you know, attempting to solve theproblem of, you know, the high cost ofselective open access publishing andtrying to find a more equitable solutionfor authors by distributing and sharingthose costs across funders.So I guess my only comment is that Ithink it's interesting and definitelysomething to watch.I know that, youknow, there is a mechanism to revert backto individually funded APCs if you knowthey're not able to reach, you know, thecollective volume that they're hoping toget to.MS. EHLER:Great.Thanks.Another question that lots of folkshave interest in, is how is Wiley workingwith partners to ensure that the APCmodel doesn't result in deeper inequity?So, for example, access to journalcontent as a reader has broadened but theability to publish is potentially reducedfor researchers who don't have fundingfor any number of reasons.MS. MOTTER:I mean, that is areally good question and it's somethingthat we're very aware of.Most of you are probably alreadyfamiliar with the discount and waiverprogram that we have for authors in theResearch For Life regions of the world.And, you know, with the increase inthe number of transitional deals andWiley open access accounts that we have,we have upwards of 1400 open accessaccounts now that offer some level ofdiscounting on the APC.So we're really trying to offsetthose costs for the communities that needthat subsidy.And I wouldn't say that it's, youknow, perfect.We don't have everythingcovered, but, you know, a lot of ourjournals are also still hybrid, so thereis an option to publish at no cost.So I think, you know, our approachhas been to try to diversify ourportfolio to make sure that there is apublication option for every author inevery subject community, whether it's ina gold open access journal or a hybridjournal.And yeah, it's something that we'recontinuing to look at and to make surethat we focus on.And I would also mention that wehave a handful of journals that wouldbe -- that would be classified as diamondOA, which are sponsored or subsidized byan institution.MR. TEIN:I would just add to that,Kaia, and for the group, you know, we allknow there are deep-rooted systemicissues on the equity side.So as we think together about policyand advocacy, this is something that weshould -- can and should be working toaddress collectively.Certainly that's abig priority for us at Wiley.And we'dlove to brainstorm with you.I think Kaia is addressing sort ofthe immediate tactical, what we can doright away.But attempting to do bothis -- or doing both is, I think, key.And we'd love to work with you on that.MS. EHLER:Thank you.Really quickly, I think if we havetime, a question from John Christel ofsome of the complexity around Plan S andtransformational agreements andtransformational journals.Is it necessary for social sciencejournals already in many European readand publish deals to sign on to be atransformative journal under cOAlition S?MS. MOTTER:First off, hi, John.Good to see you again.So transformative -- I think whatJohn's referring to is the approach thatSpringer Nature has taken where wehave -- where they have sort of set apercentage -- or a benchmark for thepercentage of open access at which pointthe journal will flip to a fully gold OAmodel.That has not been our approach, andwe don't really intend to take thatapproach in the way that we look attransformation.As I said, we are planning to flipjournals from subscription to openaccess.And we have a plan to -- to movein that direction with a number of oursubscription journals.But we are being very careful aboutthe approach that we take to flippingjournals, and making sure that thejournals that we do transform or we dotransition are going to be sustainable inthe market as a gold open access journal,so there has to be adequate funding, openaccess funding.And there has to be -- you know,a -- we have to also carefully look atthe regional profile of the journal toensure that the authors in that communityhave the funds to pay an APC.So in many cases, we're taking amore gradual approach.So we're watchingas the amount of online open or hybridAPC publications grows and, you know --but without benchmarking and saying,okay, once we get to 80 percent, then weflip.There's a lot more nuance and a lotmore context that needs to be appliedbefore we'll make that decision.MS. EHLER:Yeah.And I thinkthat's a great segue, and we're a littleover time, into our next session.Itstarts on the hour.But we will be talking about thatkind of tactical, strategic level lookingat specific journals and evaluating whatthe right strategy is for your society oryour particular journal.So we had a lot more questions wedidn't get to, but I hope the nextsession answers many of them; and if not,that you're able to join for the openQ&A.We'll end there.Thank you again so much everybodyand hope to see you in a few minutes.FEMALE SPEAKER:Thank you.MS. EHLER:Thanks again. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download