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….

Sci-Hub’s Business Model Scares Me

Debates and discussions about Sci-Hub’s effectiveness and utility leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. Outright defenses of it make me worryPromotion of it seems completely out of bounds. It’s a pirate site, yes, but there’s more to it, things that make it far more insidious than the Napster it’s often compared to. Yet, we continue to see Sci-Hub justified, rationalized, and normalized as if what it does is acceptable, even laudable….”

Sci-Hub’s Business Model Scares Me

Debates and discussions about Sci-Hub’s effectiveness and utility leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. Outright defenses of it make me worryPromotion of it seems completely out of bounds. It’s a pirate site, yes, but there’s more to it, things that make it far more insidious than the Napster it’s often compared to. Yet, we continue to see Sci-Hub justified, rationalized, and normalized as if what it does is acceptable, even laudable….”

[Riksbankens Jubileumsfond shifts from supporting Plan S to criticism]

In October 2018, Riksbankens Jubileumsfond joined Coalition S. The Riksbankens Jubileumsfond is one of Sweden’s largest private research funders and has for more than a decade worked to support and promote Open Science. Our Board of Directors has unanimously supported the idea of Open Science and Open Access, as demonstrated in our guidelines for OA publishing, adopted in 2010. In November 2018, Plan S was announced as the Coalition’s shared plan for moving further towards the aim ofmaking science open and accessible. Since then, a number of open consultations both internationally and nationally have taken place. As a consequence of observations made in these consultations, the Board ofRJ has on 28 February 2019 decided the following: RJ remains in the Coalition S, but cannot support Plan S in its current form….

To a large extent Plan S has been launched without dialogue with those who are most affected by the Plan. Through this modus operandi Plan S has succeeded to turn researchers who have been in favour of Open Science and Robert Merton’s CUDOS principles against these positions. This is an unfortunate development. The time-frame for implementation of Plan S is generally, among affected researchers, found to be unrealistic, and there are a number of conditions in Plan S which need further clarification or added flexibility. Plan S, as it is now presented, risks affecting the quality ofscientific publishing, including having a negative impact on the career paths of younger scholars. …”

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’. …”

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….”

Open access and Plan S: how Wellcome is tackling four key concerns | Wellcome

“What if high-quality journals don’t offer compliant routes – will they be off limits? …

Won’t researchers’ careers be disadvantaged, particularly early career researchers? …

Will international collaborations be threatened? …

Will learned societies be threatened by the loss of publication revenues? …”