Post #2433626

2024-03-29 17:22 UTC

@mike@sauropods.win @mattjhodgkinson@scicomm.xyz @villavelius@mastodon.online @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org I'm just guessing, but maybe what Matt is trying to say is that there is a risk of a multitude of policies? Some lead to APC payments, some to subscription payments and some fund infratsructure? That way, nothing every changes, I agree. But that's exactly why we welcome the Gates policy that is setting an example. if it were followed, journals would just die becuse nobody would be paying them any more.

Replies (2)

@brembs@mastodon.social 2024-03-29 17:23

@mike@sauropods.win @mattjhodgkinson@scicomm.xyz @villavelius@mastodon.online @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org Now the next step would be that you can only apply for Gates funds if your institution doesn't pay APCs or subscriptions, either.

Open ##2433627
@mattjhodgkinson@scicomm.xyz 2024-03-29 17:56

@brembs@mastodon.social @mike@sauropods.win @villavelius@mastodon.online @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org If funders all stop paying APCs, that'll mean (absent another revenue stream) most existing publishers will en masse revert to subscription journals - and transformational agreements with institutions will revert to big deals, because funders don't control library subscriptions. Unless, of course, you have a replacement ready that researchers will use. Are such replacements ready?

Open ##2433628