“Research undertaken by Springer Nature shows that while there are proven benefits in publishing OA, including increased citations, increased downloads and wider impact, authors are still not routinely choosing to publish OA for often valid reasons. Springer Nature has demonstrated that when innovative transformative deals are in place, a wide range of journals available from which authors can choose and the benefits of OA strongly promoted, then accelerated OA transition is not only possible but very successful. In the four most mature countries which have Read and Publish deals with Springer Nature, OA penetration rates have reached 73-90% in only three years….”
“We welcome Plan S as a ‘decisive step towards the realisation of full open access’1, in particular the push it provides towards realization of a research process based on the principles of open science. This is fully aligned with our mission to bring scientists together to share work as rapidly and widely as possible, to advance science faster and to benefit society as a whole. Our publications have operated in line with the core principles outlined in Plan S since the launch of our first journal, PLOS Biology, in 2003. We recognize that wide adoption of support for Plan S may bring additional competition within the open access publishing space. We welcome this evolution as a positive change in research culture, resulting in greater availability of information, growing inclusion in the scientific process and increasing the speed of discovery and innovation. …”
“In particular ARL:
- Supports the acknowledged role of open repositories as mechanisms for achieving immediate open access to scholarship, and endorses the February 6, 2019, response to Plan S implementation guidelines from the Confederation of Open Access Repositories (COAR). COAR both articulated the challenges of the open repository community in meeting the high technical requirements of Plan S as written, and offered minimum viable requirements necessary to achieve the vision of Plan S.
- Shares the cOAlition S acknowledgement of a diversity of models for OA journals, in particular non-APC-based outlets. ARL has concerns about the technical requirements in the implementation guidelines for non-APC-based OA journals. ARL urges cOAlition S not to classify long-term good actors in scholarly communication as non-compliant with Plan S based on their inability to meet stringent technical requirements currently out of reach for the majority of these journals. Rather, cOAlition S could consider lengthening timelines to meet requirements, and/or, as ARL member libraries Harvard and MIT suggested in their public comments, provide funding for these journals to become compliant.
- Welcomes cOAlition S establishment of a “fair and reasonable APC level,” and encourages maximum transparency in the accounting of that level so that publishers of all sizes can fairly compete, and so that the rubric may become an accepted standard among all stakeholders. This rubric should include waivers or provisions for scholars who are unable to pay APCs in the absence of external or institutional funding. To be successful, Plan S must ensure equitable, barrier-free access.
- Supports author retention of copyrights and ability to issue open licenses. Scalable mechanisms for asserting copyright retention remain a challenge for research institutions, and we look forward to ongoing conversation with cOAlition S to find solutions that work for the scholarly community and in support of greater openness.
- Looks forward—as a partner in the research ecosystem—to the findings of Wellcome, UK Research and Innovation, and Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) on Plan S–compliant business models for scholarly and learned societies. ARL commits to working with the learned society community to find a path forward for open, equitable, scholarly publishing.
- Affirms that research libraries are critical stakeholders within scholarly publishing, particularly within their own institutions. ARL, along with our international research library partner associations in Australia (Council of Australian University Librarians), Canada (Canadian Association of Research Libraries), Europe (Association of European Research Libraries), and the United Kingdom (Research Libraries UK), would welcome ongoing communication and engagement with cOAlition S on these implementation guidelines to ensure the success of the Plan S vision….”
“One such issue that OASPA sees currently as a significant barrier to the uptake of open access, and to other innovations in scholarly communication, is that the present system for evaluating researchers is most often based on which journals they publish in. Many research institutions have pledged their support for change by signing the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) and, more importantly, some are now leading the way by putting this pledge into practice. It is therefore both welcome and essential that Plan S also is encouraging reform in research evaluation practices, as applied to recruitment, tenure and promotion, and grant awards. It is imperative that other funders join this effort and that funders work closely with institutions if such reform is to be implemented on a global scale.
OASPA’s main concern relating to Plan S, however, is that discussions and solutions continue to be focussed on the largest, mixed-model publishers. While it is this segment of the market on which funders’ attention – and spend – is concentrated, the vast majority of publishers within the so-called ‘Long Tail’ (the majority of OASPA’s members) appear to be absent from the focus of Plan S. Many of these publishers are too small to negotiate the kind of ‘transformative’ national Big Deals we are seeing for the largest publishers, while exclusively open access publishers without legacy subscription businesses are also unable to participate. Many are not even of sufficient size to make agreements directly with institutions….”
“The level of technical compliance is not the same for journals and platforms on the one hand, and for repositories on the other hand. While, according to the guidance on the implementation of Plan S, journals and publishing platforms should provide “machine readable” formats (no requirement in terms of standards), repositories should store the full text in “XML in JATS standard (or equivalent)”. As any XML, HTML or even plain text can be considered a machine readable format, the requirement for repositories appears to be much higher. In particular so, considering that most of them do not meet the criteria currently. The same holds also true for many publishing platforms and journals. Therefore, the criteria for technical compliance for journals, platforms and repositories should be aligned….
More work should be done, nonetheless, on non-APC Open Access journals (known as “Diamond”), of which, according to DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals), more exist compared to Gold journals (9173 against 3299), particularly in the Social Sciences and Humanities. cOAlition S should allow for funding mechanisms to support Diamond journals which otherwise could be tempted to move towards Gold APC models to be eligible to receive cOAlition S grants….”
“To make it easier for authors to self-archive simply, quickly, and correctly, we’ve created Direct2AAM, a set of guides to turn the often unsuccessful hunt for author accepted manuscripts (AAM) into a simple set of instructions that’ll always bring results. The guides, available for most major journals, provide easy to follow instructions for authors to obtain an Author Accepted Manuscript from their journal submission system, where the AAM is stored during the publishing process….”
“New author guidelines supporting open and FAIR data in scholarly publishing are being adopted throughout the Earth, space, and environmental sciences community. With the new guidelines, supporting resources are provided. These include a new tool for finding the right repository and answers to frequently asked questions. Adoption of these new guidelines requires a shift in the scientific culture around data sharing. Support for this change is needed by researchers, institutions, funders, journals, repositories, and connecting infrastructure—which will advance research across the geosciences….”
“On 11 October 2018, Jochen Schirrwagen from the University of Bielefeld presented a webinar for UK repositories in order to help them comply with version 3 of OpenAIRE’s guidelines for open access repositories. OpenAIRE’s mission is to shift scholarly communication towards openness and transparency and facilitate innovative ways to communicate and monitor research, with a vision to transform society through validated scientific knowledge, and allow citizens, educators, funders, civil servants and industry find ways to make science useful for themselves, their working environments, the society. These values adhere with Jisc’s own mission and vision for open access and open science, and Jisc serves as the national open access desk for the UK.
Furthermore, it is a mandate for projects who have received Horizon 2020-funding that their research outputs must be put into an OA repository; in some instances, if a researcher cannot locate a suitable repository, we encourage them to deposit into Zenodo, the open repository developed by CERN. In other instances, we want to ensure that OpenAIRE can harvest from the researcher’s chosen repository. It was noted during the webinar that of the 277 repositories registered in Jisc’s directory of open access repositories, OpenDOAR, only 94 of them are compliant with OpenAIRE’s guidelines.
Particularly during this open access week, we would like to see that number increased. Although we are not repeating the webinar, we have had the presentation recorded; that recording is available without having to download any kind of loader or additional software. In addition, the slides and document listing all of the UK repositories which are currently registered in OpenAIRE are both available….”
“There are eight standards in the TOP guidelines; each moves scientific communication toward greater openness. These standards are modular, facilitating adoption in whole or in part. However, they also complement each other, in that commitment to one standard may facilitate adoption of others. Moreover, the guidelines are sensitive to barriers to openness by articulating, for example, a process for exceptions to sharing because of ethical issues, intellectual property concerns, or availability of necessary resources. The complete guidelines are available in the TOP information commons at http://cos.io/top, along with a list of signatories that numbered 86 journals and 26 organizations as of 15 June 2015. …
The journal article is central to the research communication process. Guidelines for authors define what aspects of the research process should be made available to the community to evaluate, critique, reuse, and extend. Scientists recognize the value of transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Improvement of journal policies can help those values become more evident in daily practice and ultimately improve the public trust in science, and science itself.”
“The Scholix initiative is a high level interoperability framework for exchanging information about the links between scholarly literature and data. It aims to build an open information ecosystem to understand systematically what data underpins literature and what literature references data. The DLI Service is the first exemplar aggregation and query service fed by the Scholix open information ecosystem. The Scholix framework together with the DLI aggregation are designed to enable other 3rd party services (domain-specific aggregations, integrations with other global services, discovery tools, impact assessments etc).
Scholix is an evolving lightweight set of Guidelines to increase interoperability rather than a normative standard….”