“OSPRI and the Open Organization community at Opensource.com are seeking proposals for an article series focused on open principles and methodologies in education.”
“We agree with the economic principle that states that the proposal OA2020 only seeks to change the nature of the market, which makes the inflation of the magazine’s price to be more likely, as the change to Open Access by charging APC “leaves out” the libraries from the game and leads the academics to confront big commercial editors. In this way, even if minor costs in magazines were produced, there are two additional dysfunctions in a complete APC model: the problem of perception and the seriousness of the preying magazines problem….
We agree that an OA expansion policy, through the payment of APC fees, is impossible to undertake from a financial point of view for the participant countries. To not create grants to pay a publication in OA-APC magazines is recommended to the institutions….”
“There are at least three radical aspects of Plan S: authors are being required to retain copyright and to publish under an open licence (preferably CC-BY); the funding of OA APCs (where applicable) will be standardised and capped across Europe (and I assume this means a per paper cap); and the ‘hybrid’ model is not compliant….
Of specific interest to the UK is the fact that our main research funder, UKRI, is included as one of the signatories. Earlier this year, UKRI announced a review of their OA policy and we are expecting that to start later this year or early next. However, they are now a member of this coalition and have signed up to Plan S. It would appear clear that, at the very least, UKRI is signalling an intended direction of travel….”
“This decisive action on behalf of the research funding community reinforces the efforts of the Open Access 2020 Initiative, constituting a strategic alignment in the drive to accelerate the transition to open access with concrete measures aimed at removing our financial support of a scholarly communication system based on paywalled subscriptions.
By designating the ‘hybrid’ model of publishing as not compliant with the principles of Plan S, the funding bodies of cOAlition S are putting an end to “double dipping” and, thus, increasing the leverage power of their investments in precisely the same way that national consortia are using their subscription expenditures as leverage to inject open access into license negotiations. Like the successful flanking tactics in the Battle at Marathon, research funding organizations and research performing institutions (via their libraries and consortia) are now working on both sides of the scholarly communication chain to rein in the expenditures flowing to subscription publishers and lay siege to paywalls….”
“The Academy of Finland supports Plan S. The Academy acknowledges planned joint actions by research funders and the need for further international cooperation paving the way towards the vision of science without publication paywalls.
Riitta Maijala, Vice President for Research, said: “The Academy of Finland believes that joint actions by research funders and the scientific community can significantly change the situation. Such actions can foster an environment where full open access to scientific publications will be easy and economically feasible for researchers without concerns about the quality or credibility of the platform.” …”
From Google’s English: “It is nothing less than a revolution. From 2020 onwards, scientists will no longer be allowed to publish paid research in scientific journals that charge subscription fees. Researchers, but also general practitioners, patients, hospitals and companies that can not afford to pay expensive subscriptions to professional literature, should then be able to view publicly paid research free of charge….”
“Overview. The plan is admirably strong. It aims to cover all European research, in the sciences and in the humanities, at the EU level and the member-state level. It’s a plan for a mandate, not just an exhortation or encouragement. It keeps copyright in the hands of authors. It requires open licenses and prefers CC-BY. It abolishes or phases out embargoes. It does not support hybrid journals except as stepping stones to full-OA journals. It’s willing to pay APCs but wants to cap them, and wants funders and universities to pay them, not authors. It will monitor compliance and sanction non-compliance. It’s already backed by a dozen powerful, national funding agencies and calls for other funders and other stakeholders to join the coalition.
There are two main weaknesses or aspects to watch closely. First, on one reading, the plan welcomes both gold and green OA, which is good. Its key principle requires distribution through “compliant Open Access Journals…or compliant Open Access Platforms.” But a section elucidating this principle damns green OA with faint praise, endorsing OA repositories only for preservation, not for OA itself, repeating the mistake of the Finch Group in 2012. It’s not at all clear how far the coalition will let green OA satisfy the upcoming policies. Second, the plan promises support for OA infrastructure, which is good. But it never commits to open infrastructure, that is, platforms running on open-source software, under open standards, with open APIs for interoperability, preferably owned or hosted by non-profit organizations. This omission invites the fate that befell bepress and SSRN, this time for all European research. Here’s a fuller picture….”
“The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM) welcomes the efforts by funders to work towards our shared goals of expanding access to peer-reviewed scientific works to maximise their value and reuse, but urges caution that the next steps in this transition avoid any unintended limitations on academic freedoms, and continue to ensure the overall viability and integrity of the scholarly record….
Similarly, STM believes that flexibility in Article Publication Charge (APC) pricing is key to ensuring a vibrant and viable scholarly sector where researchers are fully able to take advantage of the full range of Open Access options available to them. Caps on APCs would restrict authors’ choice of publication avenues for Gold Open Access, risk undermining quality and likely slow down the transition to a full Open Access environment….”
“From 2020 all scientific papers resulting from publicly funded research in the Netherlands will be freely available for anyone to read. Eleven countries have signed up for the new rule which was developed by Science Europe, a group of heads of national research funding organisations and the EC European Political Strategy Centre. Plan S, of which the Netherlands has been one of the most vocal supporters, may effectively put scientific journals, which depend on hefty subscription fees and paywalls, out of business. In the Netherlands alone universities wishing to stay up to speed with the latest scientific developments are paying some €40m a year, the Volkskrant said. From January 2020 publicly funded research papers can only be published on open access platforms or open access journals which agree to one-off bill for editing and publishing costs. Prestigious journals, such as Nature and Science, already offer scientists the possibility to buy out their papers and put them on line for free. ‘This was a hybrid model that was only supposed to be temporary. But publishers are continuing to do it and we want to put an end to it,’ research funding organisation NOW spokesman Stan Gielen told the paper….”
“Responding to the document’s publication, EMBO Director Maria Leptin says: “We welcome the plan, which echoes some of the recommendations EMBO has made within the Commission’s Open Science Policy Platform, and through individual discussions with Robert-Jan Smits and other European Commission representatives.
“We are pleased that ‘Plan S’ acknowledges the importance of quality in the publication process. In working towards a complete and immediate Open Access goal, we must make sure that we do not sacrifice this quality as a result of equating ‘open’ to ‘for free’.
“The coalition aims to standardize and cap publication fees across Europe. It is important that a cap on Article Processing Charges (APC) is not below the cost for assessment and processing per accepted article at quality journals. Otherwise there is a risk that openness and quality will need to be traded off against one another.” …
Leptin says: “We welcome the coalition’s desire to using the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) as a starting point to move away from the journal impact factor as a measure of research output.
“It is important that changes in scientific publishing are accompanied by changes in the institutional and funding systems such that researchers are not judged by the impact factor of the journals in which their work is published.” …”