Probably not!
My guess is that they are mainly geared towards replacing the big, expensive science journals.

In my personal opinion, the money potentially to be saved from these fields by something like ORE is so huge, that we could, hypothetically, take 10% of that saved money and give it to all the minority fields like yours and more than double their budgets.

At least this bis how it roughly pans out in the library of our institution where I adviocate such an approach.

@Jeroenson

Oh, and I also had not seen this bit:

"The Signatories expect the official launch of the collectively managed and funded ORE platform by the end of 2026."

So likely not ready by early next year, but late next year!

That sounds dramatic - any sources for the claim? My search turned up nothing.

Yes, I'm not sure what would happen if the reviewers reject the article and you refuse to change it, it would still be available with the review comments. I can understand why one may want to then publish it elsewhere. There should be a resolution option in place for such cases.
Maybe withdraw the article?
I think further decentralization is being planned or at least considered.

Good question!

I don't know. It would be nice to get some reaction from them!

Close. The main infrastructure right now is run by F1000 (now owned by Taylor & Francis):
https://www.f1000.com/about/
They are working on migrating it to OJS:
https://openjournalsystems.com/

Yes, Crossref is currently providing DOIs for the articles, IIUC, but any such provider could do that.

Yes, ORCID is used to provide IDs for authors. Some see this as problematic, but, as of now, I don't necessarily fully endorse this view.

Yes, exactly, same here! It was the consequential move after the latest conclusions by the Council of the EU:

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2023/05/23/council-calls-for-transparent-equitable-and-open-access-to-scholarly-publications/

and the path they outline is very promising, I think.

Ah, good question!

One of several short answers is that, e.g., if these funders/countries stop fduning legacy journals, these journals will eventually go bankrupt and then ORE is their replacement.

An attempt at a longer answer is in our paper:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.230206

I'm also wondering why this is such a low-level launch. I know the ORE people themselves are very concerned with too few submissions, but something about the way they go about it smells funny.

I could only speculate where the hesitation may come from, I don't know.

In my understanding, this is journal articles only.

I agree that an infrastructure for monographs would be more than just desirable, of course!

Probably representatives of your funding agencies? There may be different ways to get this goinbg, though.

@julesh

I agree about the "below radar announcement" 🤣

It bothers me too - hence my thread.

The EU believes it can tackle the hiring/promotion problem with CoARA:

https://coara.org/

I'm skeptical.

@brembs

3. As we outline in our article, such a decentralized public infrastructure can be highly resilient against not only natural or political disasters, but also "against corporate capture and surveillance technologies":
   https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.230206
   4. If/when funding agencies realize that maintaining funding for legacy journals directly counteracts the goals they signed onto with their support of ORE, the legacy journals stand to suffer massive drops in revenue.

   What can YOU do?

   3/4

   #academicchatter