inevitable prioritization.

exactly!

see above calculation

Shall we make a calculation. A = max research funding from funders B = sum of researchers C = A/B = research fund accepted by researchers (with competition)<br> D = subscriptions to publishers

The old way: Within every C, there's E (OA publishing fund = X% x C).

The new TA way:

A = max research funding from funders consist of C = research fund without E (OA publishing fund)

D+E is paid to the publishers, which in turn give an allocation to publish as OA articles and to read non OA articles.

I don't think it changes much. It limits the choices of researchers to publish OA to certain publishers that have TA.

this is important.

1. read and publish agreement

• from subscription fund to allocations to read and publish.

1. publish and read agreement

• from subscription fund to allocation to publish. so members of the institution dan read all materials.

The repurpose should not be used since the agreement does not change the role of funders to fund and publishers to publish (with profit).

only happens to rich countries or funders with enough money to pay.

But the transition was only about how we publish and read. It does not change the fact the sum of money that has to be paid by funders (eg: government).

Then looking at the situation of publishers right now, there are big 4 or big 5 of giant publishers. The funders (eg the government) would not be able to pay agreements with all potential (big) publishers. What about agreement small- legit publishers, especially those that publish full OA from the beginning and local journals. They would be easily oversight.

1. In every deal comes with percentage of profits.

2. Although in a way it's natural (to gain profit from a service), but how much profit is a good profit?

3. I don't think we have set up the limit. there's a price cap, but it would easily be converted to final expected profits by inputing the component of large publishing portofolio. Calculation: fixed price cap per article x (sum of allocated articles to publish + sum of allocated articles to read) = expected profit X%

4. What we (researchers) would get from it? Is it rights to publish and rights to read? So let's consider the following situations: a. in this digital internet era, anyone can publish something anywhere anytime, why would we limit our choices to certain journals from certain publishers? b. if we insert to component of peer review as one of the key feature in publishing in a journal, well then all journal would "naturally" do that (by excluding questionable journals). with more choices of OA journals that we have, why would we limit our choices to certain journal articles from certain publishers?<br> c. in a scenario where preprinting is a norm to retain copyrights, then readers would always have an OA version of any articles they wish to read.

5. So again, why would we limit our choices to only journals from certain publishers?

Which freedom we are talking about? We can practice our freedom to publish and publish OA by preprinting even by uploading our manuscript to blogs.

The missing component with that freedom is peer reviewing. Then what is stopping us from creating a freedom to peer review? (eg: PCI, Pre-review).

Many UK institutions have signed a contract to fund CUP's publishing activities for four years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.