How society publishers can accelerate their transition to open access and align with Plan S – Wise – 2020 – Learned Publishing – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  Wellcome, UK Research and Innovation, and the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers commissioned Information Power Ltd. to undertake a project to support society publishers to accelerate their transition to open access (OA) in alignment with Plan S and the wider move to accelerate immediate OA. This project is part of a range of activities that cOAlition S partners are taking forward to support the implementation of Plan S principles. The objective of this project was to explore with learned societies a range of potential strategies and business models through which they could adapt and thrive under Plan S. We consulted with society publishers through interviews, surveys, and workshops about the 27 business models and strategies identified during the project. We also surveyed library consortia about their willingness to support society publishers to make the transition to OA. Our key finding is that transformative agreements emerge as the most promising model because they offer a predictable, steady funding stream. We also facilitated pilot transformative agreement negotiations between several society publishers and library consortia. These pilots and a workshop of consortium representatives and society publishers informed the development of an OA transformative agreement toolkit. Our conclusion is that society publishers should consider all the business models this project has developed and should not automatically equate OA with article publication charges.


How Many Copies Are Enough Revisited: Open Access Legal Scholarship in the Time of Collection Budget Constraints

“This article discusses the results of a study in to the open access accessibility of law reviews, followed by a discussion of why open access has such a high rate of adoption among law reviews, especially in comparison to the journal literature in other disciplines.”

How Many Copies Are Enough Revisited: Open Access Legal Scholarship in the Time of Collection Budget Constraints

“This article discusses the results of a study in to the open access accessibility of law reviews, followed by a discussion of why open access has such a high rate of adoption among law reviews, especially in comparison to the journal literature in other disciplines.”

Adoption of the open access business model in scientific journal publishing – A crossdisciplinary study

Abstract:  Scientific journal publishers have over the past twenty-five years rapidly converted to predominantly electronic dissemination, but the reader-pays business model continues to dominate the market. Open Access (OA) publishing, where the articles are freely readable on the net, has slowly increased its market share to near 20%, but has failed to fulfill the visions of rapid proliferation predicted by many early proponents. The growth of OA has also been very uneven across fields of science. We report market shares of open access in eighteen Scopus-indexed disciplines ranging from 27% (agriculture) to 7% (business). The differences become far more pronounced for journals published in the four countries, which dominate commercial scholarly publishing (US, UK, Germany and the Netherlands). We present contrasting developments within six academic disciplines. Availability of funding to pay publication charges, pressure from research funding agencies, and the diversity of discipline-specific research communication cultures arise as potential explanations for the observed differences.

The Common Ground of Open Access and Interdisciplinarity

Abstract:  In recent years, Open Access and interdisciplinarity have emerged as two prevalent trends in academia. Although seemingly separate pursuits with separate literature, goals, and advocates, there are significant interconnections between these two movements that have largely gone unnoticed. This paper provides a philosophical inquiry into the unexplored relationship between these two trends and makes the case that there is an intrinsic affinity between Open Access and interdisciplinarity and, as such, concludes that all interdisciplinary research, to remain true to the foundational tenets of interdisciplinarity, ought to be Open Access.


Attitudes of North American Academics toward Open Access Scholarly Journals

Abstract:  In this study, the authors examine attitudes of researchers toward open access (OA) scholarly journals. Using two-step cluster analysis to explore survey data from faculty, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers at large North American research institutions, two different cluster types emerge: Those with a positive attitude toward OA and a desire to reach the nonscholarly audience groups who would most benefit from OA (“pro-OA”), and those with a more negative, skeptical attitude and less interest in reaching nonscholarly readers (“non-OA”). The article explores these cluster identities in terms of position type, subject discipline, and productivity, as well as implications for policy and practice.

Open access potential and uptake in the context of Plan S – a partial gap analysis | Zenodo

“Data available at:

The analysis presented in this report, carried out by Utrecht University Library, aims to provide cOAlition S, an international group of research funding organizations, with initial quantitative and descriptive data on the availability and usage of various open access options in different fields and subdisciplines, and, as far as possible, their compliance with Plan S requirements.

Plan S, launched in September 2018, aims to accelerate a transition to full and immediate Open Access. In the guidance to implementation, released in November 2018 and updated in May 2019, a gap analysis of Open Access journals/platforms was announced. Its goal was to inform Coalition S funders on the Open Access options per field and identify fields where there is a need to increase the share of Open Access journals/platforms. 

The report should be seen as a first step: an exploration in methodology as much as in results. Subsequent interpretation (e.g. on fields where funder investment/action is needed) and decisions on next steps (e.g. on more complete and longitudinal monitoring of Plan S-compliant venues) is intentionally left to cOAlition S and its members….”

Gaps Report highlights why Plan S is needed | Plan S

“The main result of the study is that, in 2017 prior to the launch of Plan S, researchers across all fields had a number of options to share their peer reviewed articles immediately and openly. Already in 2017, 75% of all journals used by cOAlition S funded researchers allowed open access publishing. Many of these journals were hybrid journals but could be made compliant with Plan S by bringing them under ‘Transformative Agreements’ which many consortia around the world are seeking to negotiate with publishers. Alternatively, cOAlition S is developing the concept of “Transformative Journals” which would allow publishers to make their hybrid journals compliant with Plan S.

The study also shows that almost all hybrid journals and 50% of closed journals used by cOAlition S funded grantees already provided self-archiving options. A 12-month embargo period was the most prevalent in many fields. Arguably the simplest approach publishers could take to make their journals Plan S compliant (at least in the short term) is agreeing to a zero embargo policy. This study shows that examples of zero-embargo policies exist in all fields but especially in the social sciences.

The report reveals differences between research fields and subdisciplines in the availability of open access publishing options and their alignment with aspects of Plan S. It also shows that the usage of these options by cOAlition S funded researchers varied. These differences provide valuable insights into which approaches are working well in particular contexts, and provide fields and venues that can serve as examples or role models for other fields where appropriate.

In conclusion, across all disciplines, a large majority of existing journals could be made compliant with Plan S, either through “Transformative Arrangements” or through enabling unembargoed self-archiving….”