“If the Plan S criteria would be applied today, 99% of these trusted journals [in chemistry] would be out of reach for the researchers that are supported by the eleven cOAlitionS funders, which would create an unworkable and undesirable situation for Chemistry research in Europe. In the implementation of Plan S, a solution must be found for this situation….”
“I have argued that Plan S, if we were to take the 10 principles as currently written as policy, would impinge on academic freedom. It’s interesting who dismisses this claim out of hand and who actually responds to my argument, even if they disagree with me. I think Peter Suber is a member of the latter camp….”
” “With Plan S there has been a lack of consultation, a lack of consideration, a lack of detail, and a lack of time,” said Malavika Legge, acting director of publishing for Portland Press and the Biochemical Society, at an event on Thursday called “Get Smart About Plan S.”
Plan S is said to stand for science, speed, solution, and shock. Moreover, it is clear from the reactions on the stage that “shock” sums up what the publishers on stage feel about the radical open access plan announced only on September 4 by the European Research Council. The plan is supposed to be implemented by 2020, which in the timescale of publishing is—as Legge says—“already here.”\
Bewilderment may be a better word for the mood of the session whose participants all claimed to be committed to open access publishing. …
The panelists felt that even if Plan S accelerates the transition to open access publishing, it still represents an existential attack on the academic publishing industry. While some publishers say they are staring into the headlights of Plan S like a deer, others say it should be a call-to-arms by the industry to challenge the stereotype that all they care about is profit.”
“Publishers of scientific journals are facing renewed threats to their business models from both sides of the Atlantic. As European science funders promote a radical new open-access (OA) publishing mandate they unveiled last month, the Trump administration is considering changes to a five-year-old directive governing the public release of research literature sponsored by federal agencies.”
“Regarding the ban on publishing OA in hybrid journals, last time we said we did not see the reason for it. A kind reader has pointed out that the Preamble actually addresses this issue. The reason is that using hybrids supports the subscription model. This makes it clear that Plan S is a full scale attack on the subscription model, which may make it a hard sell in the U.S., at least as long as the Republicans are in charge.
This leads us to the first big confusion. Some OA experts argue that subscription journal articles made immediately available via a repository comply with Plan S. One Coalition leader seems to support this, saying the Plan S does not distinguish gold OA from Green.
On the other hand, allowing this sort of green compliance supports the subscription model. If hybrid OA articles are ruled out because they support the subscription model, then by that reasoning green OA ought to be ruled out as well. Statements from other leaders seem to support this view.
In addition, the conditions under which a repository deposit might comply may be of a sort that most subscription publishers do not allow. This adds a significant degree of complexity to the case. Since this issue of green OA compliance is now well known it should be interesting to see just how the coming Plan S Coalition rules handle it (if they do).
Also on the hybrid front, there is supposed to be what the Coalition is calling a “transition period,” wherein hybrid OA articles are allowed to comply with Plan S. One leader says this is period likely to be 3 or 4 years.
There is some hubris in calling this a transition period, because it assumes that the subscription model will largely disappear by the end of the term. Thus the transition intended is to the end of subscriptions, perhaps where all the subscription journals flip to gold OA, or something like that. As we have said before, the relatively small number of articles that flow from Coalition member funding makes this a questionable scenario….”
“UBORA aims at creating an EU-Africa e-Infrastructure enabling open source co-design of new solutions to face the current and future healthcare challenges of both continents. To do so the project brings together European and African universities and their associated technological hubs, biomedical prototyping laboratories and incubators, national and international policymakers, and committed stakeholders….”
“The problem right now, however, is that there is too little information on how Plan S would work in practice. This means it is nigh impossible for informed commentary to take place, and we are seeing frequent calls for clarification.
On 12th September, therefore, I invited Smits to do an interview with me, in the hope that he could provide that clarification. I suggested we do this either by telephone or email. Smits agreed and said he would prefer to do it by email. So, I emailed him a list of questions and waited for his replies. These arrived on Monday this week. …”
“After an intense online debate and an excellent expert workshop, we?—?the Lisbon Council, ESADE Business School and the Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) at Leiden University?—?are happy to publish a revised methodology (soon to be posted on the official European Commission website). First and foremost, this is not the final methodology. It has become clear that open science is too dynamic and too difficult to measure for a “definitive” methodology. It is rather a second interim release?—?and it will require continuous collaboration with the open science community in the future, also in connection with other existing efforts by OpenAire, FAIR Metrics and the European Open Science Cloud….”
We will use Unpaywall data alongside Scopus data. Unpaywall has a very large footprint and will increase the coverage of the Open Science Monitor. And we will continue to look at and collaborate with Unpaywall in its new initiatives….
Secondly, we will make collaboration with the community not a one-off, but permanent. The commentable document worked well; we received more than 300 comments. Most of these comments are initial ideas that need clarification and refinement. We need more permanent and interactive ways to discuss. Hence, we have opened an Open Science Monitor Linkedin Groupto work on new indicators?—?anyone is able to join….”
“Organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust should join Plan S to continue their “moral leadership” on open research, Plan S founder and European Commission open-access envoy Robert-Jan Smits told Research Europe. He was speaking on his return from a weeklong tour of federal agencies, universities and learned societies in the United States, where he was attempting to boost international support for the plan….
Smits claimed that the feedback on Plan S he received in the US was mostly that independent foundations need to join….
Smits has said that Plan S is based on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s policies. These include that papers reporting research it has funded must be made openly available immediately and with a licence that permits unrestricted reuse. The foundation has forced some of the world’s most prestigious journals to change their policies so that they comply.
During the trip, Smits sought to quell fears that Plan S would undermine the so-called green open-access model, in which papers are placed in repositories, usually after a publisher-imposed embargo period. Plan S will not accept embargo periods, causing some concern that it will only support the gold open-access model in which papers are made openly available immediately, usually by paying publishers an article-processing charge.
Smits said that Plan S leaves “ample room” for repositories, article preprints and self-archiving. He also admitted that organisations in the US flagged the plan’s lack of recognition for publishers using the so-called diamond and platinum open-access models, which do not charge authors publication fees….
According to Smits, those he met who were most enthusiastic about Plan S were librarians and researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University.
More cautiously interested parties, he said, were the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Smits said this was because the OSTP is awaiting a new director who will set the agenda for open access at the federal level. Research Europe has approached these organisations for comment.
Those who were most sceptical of the plan were the learned societies, Smits said. These organisations rely on income from journal subscription charges and fear that the loss of revenue caused by a switch to open access would affect activities such as the organisation of conferences, he said….”
“Plan S is not radical…
Plan S even advocates that the APCs be paid by funding agencies and governments, maintaining the massive transfer of public money to publishers for our privilege to publish and read publicly funded research. It creates a system in which we continue to pay to have research done and to have it published.
By specifying that green OA only plays an archival role rather than a publishing role, it keeps commercial publishers firmly in control of the landscape. That is far from radical, and is exactly in line with the wishes of the commercial publishers. So what are they reacting to?…”