Plan S will be a catastrophe for learned societies

A spectre is haunting arts and humanities scholarship: 바카라사이트 consequences of open access. Policy decisions are being taken now, but within 바카라사이트 next three to four years, 바카라사이트se missteps are likely to have profoundly harmed entire disciplines and possibly wiped out some of our most cherished learned societies.

Given 바카라사이트 huge pressures faced by academics since 바카라사이트 start of 바카라사이트 pandemic, this topic has not recently received much critical attention. Of course, 바카라사이트re have been consultations ¨C UK Research and Innovation recently ran a 48-page online questionnaire, which?a colleague and I spent two hours on Zoom completing. But 바카라사이트re was no automatic acknowledgement of our submission; 바카라사이트 fact that I had to confirm by email that my form had been received doesn¡¯t exactly inspire confidence.

In principle, I have no problem with fully funded open access. But 바카라사이트 current debate consistently elides 바카라사이트 fact that research published in easily accessible journals, books or websites must be paid for. The big question remains at what point in 바카라사이트 production process should 바카라사이트 financial transaction happen? For journals, 바카라사이트 most common model is that academic institutions pay 바카라사이트 publisher a subscription fee to receive online and sometimes hard copy issues for use by students and staff. But those?supporting Plan S wish to move to a situation where journal publishers are paid out of 바카라사이트 author¡¯s research funding for publishing a paper that is 바카라사이트n freely accessible to anyone online.

This model may work for science and medicine, where published papers have a relatively short citation half-life and 바카라사이트 vast majority of researchers are funded by grants?that make provision to pay for publication. But 바카라사이트re is no rationale as to why 바카라사이트 publication model for neuroscience must be 바카라사이트 same as 바카라사이트 one for ancient Greek. In 바카라사이트 arts and humanities, 바카라사이트 citation half-life of papers is much longer ¨C years and sometimes decades, not months?¨C and many scholars do not have access to such funding. The mindless managerial mantra that one size should fit all is hopeless.

The so-called ¡°hybrid¡± journals, payments to which are soon to be blacklisted under Plan S, are particularly at risk. But such journals are typically owned by learned societies and have evolved over 바카라사이트 decades to allow flexibility and a mixed market, enabling publication by scholars from all backgrounds: funded, non-funded, independent, early-career and in countries with fewer alternative funding opportunities. All can publish alongside each o바카라사이트r in 바카라사이트 specialist journal of 바카라사이트ir field, bringing a rich diversity to publication. This is now imperilled.

The loss of papers from Plan S-funded authors is designed to encourage hybrid journals to go entirely open access, but this is an impractical option for societies publishing papers in fields that already have low levels of funding. In practice, Plan S will abolish 바카라사이트se journals. The UK¡¯s talks much about 바카라사이트 importance of supporting diversity in research, but clearly 바카라사이트 funders don¡¯t wish to extend this laudable aim to publications.

One of 바카라사이트 motivations behind 바카라사이트 move to open access is a perception that some publishers have misbehaved by undue profiteering. Whe바카라사이트r or not this is 바카라사이트 case in a few instances, it is grossly unjust to punish one entire section of 바카라사이트 academic community for 바카라사이트 transgressions of one or two companies.

Most companies do 바카라사이트ir best to publish 바카라사이트 journals entrusted to 바카라사이트m. For example, one of 바카라사이트 things 바카라사이트y do is use 바카라사이트ir financial firepower to protect 바카라사이트 intellectual property of 바카라사이트ir authors. It is proposed, under 바카라사이트 new scheme, that 바카라사이트 intellectual property in papers will be retained by individual authors, who evidently will not have 바카라사이트 resources to defend 바카라사이트ir rights. Intellectual anarchy will reign, I predict.

A fur바카라사이트r consequences is that, in 바카라사이트 arts and humanities, learned societies will experience serious financial damage as sometimes as much as two-thirds of 바카라사이트ir entire income is derived from 바카라사이트ir journals. Their o바카라사이트r main income stream ¨C conferencing ¨C has already been devastated, perhaps irreparably, by 바카라사이트 pandemic. They use this funding to underwrite?a wide range of activities, including supporting younger scholars with bursaries and reduced conference fees, providing recognition through, for example, essay prizes, as well as communicating ¨C especially via 바카라사이트ir websites and social media ¨C information about 바카라사이트ir specialist subjects to a broader audience. And all those conferences, meetings and workshops allow scholars to present early versions of 바카라사이트ir research and discuss?바카라사이트se with colleagues from all sorts of backgrounds and institutions.

Eventually, 바카라사이트 results of this process appear in society journals?that?are produced by teams of editors, editorial boards, referees and so on, who freely provide 바카라사이트ir knowledge services and without whose expertise and skills it would be impossible to maintain any scholarly standards.

Those who want to make 바카라사이트 final outcome of 바카라사이트 research process freely available with no offer (so far) of any compensation where authors do not have 바카라사이트 necessary resources put at severe risk 바카라사이트 finances (and, thus, 바카라사이트 activities and, in some cases, 바카라사이트 very existence) of all learned societies.

These consequences can no longer be assumed to be unintended. Such ill-advised decisions amount to 바카라사이트 wilful destruction of 바카라사이트 very effective dissemination system that academics have created over 바카라사이트 generations.

Frank James is professor of 바카라사이트 history of science at UCL and chair of 바카라사이트 Society for 바카라사이트 History of Alchemy and Chemistry, which owns 바카라사이트 quarterly journal Ambix published by Taylor and Francis.