The Public Library of Science (PLOS)
and the University of California (UC) have today announced a two-year agreement designed to make it easier and more affordable for UC researchers to publish in
the non-profit open-access publisher’s suite of seven journals.
Under the agreement – which is planned to go into effect this Spring –
UC Libraries will automatically pay the first $1,000 of the article processing
charge (APC) incurred when UC authors choose to publish in a PLOS journal.
Authors who do not have research funds available can request UC Libraries pay the full APC fee. The aim is to
ensure that lack of research funds does not present a barrier for UC authors
wishing to publish with PLOS.
The pilot is intended to test whether an institutional participation model that
leverages multiple funding sources, rather than only grant funds, can provide a
sustainable and inclusive path to full open access.
Below PLOS CEO Alison Mudditt discusses the new
agreement and addresses some of the issues that the current trend for universities and consortia to sign so-called transformative agreements with legacy publishers raises for native open-access publishers like PLOS.
The interview begins …
 |
| Alison Mudditt |
RP: The PLOS/UC agreement is essentially the same deal as UC
signed with JMIR Publications in January. Is
that correct?
AM: Essentially yes. UC has made their priorities for these agreements
clear, so most UC deals will be very
similar.
In addition, we are generating custom reporting for the UC to help them
evaluate the efficacy of the pilot in bringing new authors to open access
publishing while maintaining existing funding streams.
RP: Would I be right in thinking that these deals are native open-access
publishers’ response to the transformative agreements that legacy publishers
have been signing with universities and consortia like Project DEAL?
AM: While we can only speak on behalf of PLOS, this is certainly one
of the drivers for us. We think that there is a significant opportunity for
institutions and funders to prioritize partnerships with native OA publishers
who stand fully aligned with their OA objectives.
We have been reassured by the commitment from institutions and consortia
not to sideline negotiations with (and thereby disadvantage) native OA
publishers.
RP: How many articles do you envisage UC faculty publishing with PLOS
during the two-year period of the agreement?
AM: If we base it on previous years, then around 600-800 articles.
RP: How many articles a year do UC faculty currently publish with PLOS?
AM: Around 300 per year, across the seven journals.
RP: As I understand it, the agreement means that UC faculty will be able
to publish in any PLOS journal and the first $1,000 will be paid by UC
libraries. If the researcher has access to no research funds s/he can request
full funding from the libraries. Is there any maximum sum agreed with UC
libraries such that the funds could run out before the pilot ends?
AM: Yes, we have agreed to a capped total spend of $1.5M USD over the
two-year period. This cap reflects library spend plus grant
funding declared by authors.
Once that spending cap is reached, PLOS has committed to cover the cost
of additional UC publications (assuming UC authors continue to faithfully
declare their existing grant funding, a two year spend is most likely to fall
between $1.2M and $1.25M).
$1.5M would demonstrate an unprecedented increase in publications from
the UC – but of course, a key unknown is the level of demand once the barrier
of APCs is removed.
If for some reason, we reach this cap earlier in the agreement period
than expected (if at all), we have agreed to good faith renegotiations to
ensure that both PLOS and the UC are protected from unanticipated surges in
cost.
RP: Will the details of the agreement be published?
AM: Yes – as are all of the UC agreements.
RP: PLOS has an Institutional
Account Program, of which I do not
think UC is currently a participant. What is the difference between the
agreement announced today and UC simply signing up to become a participant of
the IAP?
AM: The Institutional Account Program is a simple direct billing
program meant to minimize administrative overhead of APCs either through
pay-as-you-go monthly invoices or debiting from a standalone account. While
useful for mitigating administrative costs, it is not an OA deal,
or transformative, in and of itself.
This new deal enables the UC to allow grants to cover APCs when they
exist, so they can focus their support on where it is needed most (i.e. where
authors do not have the grant funds). It introduces an organized,
multiple-payer model of OA, which we think is important to test out.
And it meets our primary goals with new business models of ensuring that
any author who wants to can publish with PLOS, regardless of ability to pay an
APC.
