Plan S may ‘consolidate power of big publishers’, academy warns | Times Higher Education (THE)

Speaking at London Book Fair, James Rivington, head of publications at the British Academy which funds humanities and social science research, said many journals run by learned societies may struggle to adapt to Plan S rules (which come into effect in January 2020) and may seek commercial alliances to survive….”

Plan S may ‘consolidate power of big publishers’, academy warns | Times Higher Education (THE)

Speaking at London Book Fair, James Rivington, head of publications at the British Academy which funds humanities and social science research, said many journals run by learned societies may struggle to adapt to Plan S rules (which come into effect in January 2020) and may seek commercial alliances to survive….”

A price to be paid for open-access academic publishing | Letters | Education | The Guardian

“[Sarah Kember:] Your analysis of the scandal of aspects of scientific publishing (Editorial, 5 March) was on point in highlighting that, despite the best intentions, open-access routes have thus far delivered little by way of savings for universities (and therefore the taxpayer).

The headlong rush towards further adoption of open-access models demands careful thought. While questions around access to scientific research tend to grab attention, the long tail of implications are a particular concern for those of us working in the arts and humanities….”

[I]n all but the most specialist institutions, the sciences will win out as a priority for acquisitions….

Plan S: Achieving Universal Open Access to Research Papers is Becoming Unavoidable

“Reflecting on the recent consultation period for Plan S, a funder-led proposal for achieving universal open access to research papers, Jon Tennant argues that whereas, the consultation has in many ways followed the contours of previous OA debates, OA has now become an unavoidable part of academic life and has moved into the mainstream. For this reason, he argues that it is vital now, more than ever, to ensure that OA discussions are conducted as broadly and transparently as possible. …

Plan S has added a sense of urgency to the debate and drawn more academics into the bizarre, and complex, world of scholarly publishing, which, by and large, is not something that most researchers have any sort of formal training in. This has drawbacks, as in a field that has a rich history of research and debate, many actors can feel like they are having the same conversations again and again. More generally, I am also concerned about how the different information being shared about Plan S, and OA, is having an impact on the wider understanding of the issues, as well as the development of Plan S itself.

The whole point of Plan S was to disrupt the status quo and transform the world of scholarly publishing. If it yields to those who it is trying to disrupt, at the cost of the greater good, than that’s not exactly progress. Open Access is not a business model, so let us stop treating it as such. I believe that science can help us shape the world to be better, and can help solve the enormous problems that our planet currently faces. I do not believe that having it under the control of mega-corporations and elite individuals or institutes helps to realise this, or is in the principles of fundamental human rights.

Those behind Plan S need to come out and vocally state what they stand for, and what they stand against. Cut through the noise, expose the vested interests, and show who they are working for.”

William Gunn and Alex Holcombe on “Is Elsevier helping or hurting scientific progress?”

In the wake of the University of California’s decision to end their contract with Elsevier, the world’s largest scientific publisher, a lot of people have been talking about the effect that publishers like Elsevier have on the progress of science. William Gunn, director of scholarly communications for Elsevier, and Alex Holcombe, cognitive scientist and open science advocate, discuss their differing perspectives on the question. The discussion includes: What are scientists’ main complaints about Elsevier? What value does Elsevier add? Is the academic publishing market a functioning one? Can Elsevier be a force for innovation?”

From Finch to Plan S: and you may ask yourself, well how did I get here?

Collection launched: 06 Mar 2019

The Finch Report reaches the grand age of seven this year, and with the advent of Plan S, Insights wanted to commemorate the progress and the frustration with open access (OA) and open science with a special collection.

We have gone through the catalogue of previously published articles to give an interesting overview of what has been happening at the coalface since the Finch report. Post Finch, Sykes suggested that ‘there is nothing inevitable about the triumph of open access’. The bigger picture that emerges from the articles is certainly that a great deal of effort and compromise have brought us to a place much closer to the end-game than we were back in 2012. However, as the various articles show, there is a great diversity of thought on how to get to where we think we ought to be. There is a value in healthy debate, particularly when there is the benefit that OA can bring. In the days leading up to the Plan S announcement, articles in Insights signalled a more urgent tone (Earney, 2018; Lundén, Smith and Wideberg, 2018) as things were not moving fast enough in navigating the bumpy golden road towards OA (Otegem, Wennström and Hormia-Poutanen, 2018). This is something that cOAlition-S explicitly targeted. Finally, Johnson (2019) brings the special collection to a close with a round-up of the immediate aftermath post Plan S. Like you, we await the next chapter….”

Care before speed – The Guild

The Norwegian government has decided that Norway will join the ambitious open access strategy, ‘Plan S’, which was signed by the European Research Council (ERC) and other research funders from ten European countries….

Let me start by saying that I wholeheartedly support ‘Plan S’’ vision, “open science for the benefit of all,” and the University of Oslo is ready to contribute to open access, both in national and European contexts….

However, implementing Plan S would be unwise without having proper transition tools and due consideration of the implications for research practices. Today’s publishing system is the starting point for everything from international rankings and institutions’ budgets, to evaluations and recruitment. A hasty implementation of Plan S could mean that our researchers cannot publish in today’s leading journals, thus reducing their attractiveness and competitiveness for positions and projects in the global research ‘market’. …”

The “Plan S” blog: Is the EU’s open access plan a tremor or an earthquake? | Science|Business

On the surface, Plan S looks like the breaking of the scientific publishing mould. An initiative of Science Europe and Robert-Jan Smits, the European Commission’s former open access envoy, it stipulates that, by 2020, taxpayer-funded research results should be free to read immediately on publication.

It is a sharp departure – some would say threat – to the status quo. Depending on whom you talk to, the scheme, backed by a growing number of influential national funding agencies and research charities, represents the most promising effort to collapse paywalls in the world. But it is also opposed by some as a misguided attack on academic freedom (Read more here and here). And of course, it is also opposed by some scientific publishers.

In this rolling blog, we’ll be bringing you coverage and analysis of the multiple Plan S fissures more closely. The initiative’s organisers say they will publish feedback from their public consultation in the coming months, along with an updated version of the scheme’s ‘implementation plan’. Following, in no particular order, is a summary of some of the Plan S feedback already out there in the world….”

Plan S?—?doing the right thing – Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC) – Medium

The most productive response to Plan S is to endorse the plan wholeheartedly, simply because it is right, and then work positively with funders and institutions to adjust to the new publishing reality. And many funders and researchers are doing exactly that.

But there is push-back on multiple fronts.

As is their right, the for-profit publishers are making a case for the status quo. Although I disagree with their publishing model, their position is understandable.

But I cannot agree with researchers who push back on Plan S. Although they voice concerns that are reasonable and legitimate, all of them are addressed in the ten Plan S principles, and none are deal-breakers….”