PLOS and Transparency (including Plan S Price & Service Transparency Framework) – The Official PLOS Blog

“As a non-profit, mission-driven organization PLOS abides by our commitment to transparency. We openly share information and context about our finances, including target revenue amounts in some of our emerging business models. The Plan S Price & Service Transparency Framework provided us — and other publishers — a clear, uniform structure to share information about the services we perform and a percentage breakdown of how these are covered by the prices we charge. Many of our mission-driven publishing activities go well beyond peer review and production services. We provide commentary on some of these services, including how the varied editorial setups of our journals contribute to different percentage price breakdowns per title. We encourage other publishers to be transparent and openly share their data via such frameworks. And, we remain confident in showcasing how our prices cover our reasonable costs for a high level of service, with some margin for reinvestment….”

Nature journals announce first open-access agreement

“The publisher of Nature has agreed its first deal to allow some researchers to publish in the journal, and in 33 other Nature-branded titles, under open-access (OA) terms.

Research published in Nature and its sister journals is behind a paywall, although the journals have sometimes chosen to make articles OA. But in April, publisher Springer Nature announced that it would offer open-accessing publishing routes for its most selective journals that would comply with Plan S, a European-led initiative to open up the scientific literature. (Nature is editorially independent of its publisher.)….

The publisher of Nature has agreed its first deal to allow some researchers to publish in the journal, and in 33 other Nature-branded titles, under open-access (OA) terms.

Research published in Nature and its sister journals is behind a paywall, although the journals have sometimes chosen to make articles OA. But in April, publisher Springer Nature announced that it would offer open-accessing publishing routes for its most selective journals that would comply with Plan S, a European-led initiative to open up the scientific literature. (Nature is editorially independent of its publisher.)…”

Request for Information – Price and Service Transparency Framework: building a service to provide access to publisher services and pricing data | Plan S

“On behalf of cOAlition S, the European Science Foundation is exploring the feasibility of procuring an online, web-based service that provides:

a secure means by which academic journal publishers, who publish research articles funded by cOAlition S organisations, can upload price and service data, as specified in either of the cOAlition S- approved price transparency frameworks;
a secure means by which approved users (typically researchers, funders, institutions, librarians and library consortia) can access these data and download or compare the prices and services provided by different journals and publishers.

Before commissioning the development of such a service, the European Science Foundation wishes to solicit the views of potential suppliers and other informed parties regarding the feasibility of this procurement, and the likely approach that suppliers would take to satisfy the brief.

For a detailed description of the service and its requirements, please refer to the Request for Information (RFI). To that end, we would greatly appreciate your responses to a set of questions, as stated in Annex A of the RFI above, no later than Monday 30th November, 09.00 CET….”

Academy of Finland to adopt reform – Academy of Finland

“Starting with calls to be opened after 1 January 2021, the Academy of Finland will introduce a number of reforms concerning open access to scientific publications and responsible researcher evaluation. Through the reforms, the Academy wants to further strengthen its long-established policies on openness of scientific outputs and responsibility in researcher evaluation.

The policies are supported by the Academy’s commitments to international and national declarations over the past two years: the Plan S initiative for open access publishing (2018), the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) for improved research assessment (2019), the national recommendation on responsible researcher evaluation (2020), and the Finnish Declaration for Open Science and Research (2020)….”

Updated Guidelines for Publication with Open Access – Forte (English)

“As of 1 October, a new version of Forte’s Guidelines for Publication with Open Access comes into force. The intention is that the changes will make the guidelines clearer and easier to follow.

It is the objective of both the Swedish government and the EU that publications resulting from publicly funded research must be published with open access as of 2020. It is a question of democracy. The government also emphasises that there continues to be a need for higher education institutions and research funding bodies to assume a shared responsibility for striving to ensure that the national objective for open access is achieved.

The revision of Forte’s guidelines for open access makes it clearer that the requirement for immediate open access applies to all research that is granted funds as of 2021, regardless of when the results are published.

One addition to the guidelines also stipulates that all publication must be undertaken with an open licence (CC-BY). This must be stated in all versions of manuscripts submitted for publication. This means that copyright remains with the author, and is not assigned to publishers who can then restrict the use or dissemination of the published article….”

Price Transparency on Gates Open Research -Gates Open Research Blog

“Last month, F1000 Research rolled out a new pricing structure complete with price transparency for its platform. As the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a cOAlition S signatory, we knew that Gates Open Research (GOR) would need to make its pricing structure transparent, so that it meets the criteria of a fully Plan S compliant publishing platform. So, we are announcing our new pricing and service framework for GOR, which ensures a fairer and more representative pricing across all academic subject areas funded by the foundation while providing full transparency on what those prices comprise of. 

2020 marks three years of publication for GOR, and over this time the platform has grown in popularity and size, along with publishing research across the full range of academic subject areas the foundation supports. F1000 Research have analysed the publications on GOR to determine if the word count pricing structure is representative for all the published content to date. We particularly wanted to see if there was a bias towards the cost of articles in different subject areas that the foundation fund. Subject areas like education and social science research typically produce articles that are longer, so we also wanted to see if the editorial service we were providing aligned with the cost of publishing article in these areas. The results of this analysis showed that there was room for improvement, and we think the new pricing structure described below better accommodates for a fairer approach to pricing that works across all academic subjects and better represents the editorial service that is required.  

We have subsequently combined this work with the article processing charge (APC) transparency requirements necessary for Plan S compliance….”

Powerful US research funder unveils strict open-access policy

“One of the world’s richest biomedical research organizations, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), announced on 1 October that it will require scientists it funds to make papers open access (OA) as soon as they are published — a change to its current policy, which allows a delay of up to one year before results must be free to read.

The non-profit organization, based in Chevy Chase, Maryland, is only the second US funder to insist on immediate open access, after the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, Washington. As part of the policy change, HHMI has joined the coalition of funders and organizations behind Plan S, a European-led initiative that is pushing for research to be immediately accessible on publication, and is supported by national research agencies and charitable organizations such as the Wellcome Trust and the Gates foundation. The HHMI’s shift is a boost to Plan S, and having more US-based funders on board will help build momentum towards open access, says Peter Suber, director of the Harvard Open Access Project and the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The HHMI spent US$763 million on biomedical research in 2019 and supports around 4,750 researchers, producing around 2,500 papers a year. Its new policy states that from 2022, HHMI scientists must either publish papers OA or deposit their accepted manuscripts in a repository openly under a liberal publishing licence….”

Roadmap to Plan S for Australia: Final Report

“This report, commissioned by the Council of Australian University Librarians, for delivery to the DVCsR Committee, provides an analysis of the challenges and opportunities arising from Plan S for Australian researchers and universities, including high-level recommendations on how Australian universities should proceed in order to meet compliance obligations from 2021. The report considers the scale of the Plan S compliance issue, finding that 5% of Australian university research publications are affected by Plan S compliance obligations, and typically 0-2% of total research funding is from Coalition S funders. However, addressing compliance issues for affected researchers, can provide more open access publication options for all Australian university researchers in line with indications of similar requirements by other funding bodies. This allows for the challenges presented by Plan S compliance to be transformed into opportunities to enhance Australian research visibility more broadly. While a full set of recommendations can be found at the end of the report, the following summarises the high priority, urgent actions required: ? University Executives must set out clear institutional open access policy positions that align with Plan S and align recognition and reward frameworks accordingly. ? University Executives must ensure there is a central research support capability to identify affected researchers and to offer highly tailored advice. ? Universities must adequately support institutional repositories to fulfil Plan S technical and service requirements. ? CAUL must pursue negotiations with publishers to minimise or eliminate transactional APCs for open access journals. ? CAUL must ensure publishing output data and new consortium models are developed to improve the value of transformative agreements….”