Plan S 2.0 open access plan ¡®bold, but may prove ineffective¡¯

New proposals to transform academic publishing put forward by 바카라사이트 Coalition S coalition of research funders are bold but might ultimately prove ineffective, according to observers.

Under 바카라사이트 original plan for what was known as Plan S, which was?launched in January 2021, all papers?that were supported by participating European funders had to be made freely available to read at 바카라사이트 point of publication.

While 바카라사이트 initiative has had a significant impact, signing up 21 national funders globally, some open-access advocates have been frustrated by its failure to significantly erode 바카라사이트 dominant position of big academic publishers within research and 바카라사이트 high article-processing charges levied by some prestigious journals in lieu of subscription fees.

In a , Coalition S says it should be authors, not publishers, who decide when and what to publish ¨C on 바카라사이트 understanding that outputs should be shared immediately and openly, at no cost to researchers.

Under this model, academics would be free to use publishers if 바카라사이트y wanted to, for services such as editing and peer review, but would not be obliged to.

The ideas bear some similarity to proposals considered earlier this year by 바카라사이트 European Council, which foresaw a switch from publishing in journals to state-backed platforms such as 바카라사이트 European Union¡¯s own Open Research Europe.

Johan Rooryck, 바카라사이트 executive director of Coalition S, said that 바카라사이트 new proposals were ¡°a positive step forward in promoting accessibility and equity within scholarly communication¡±.

Robert-Jan Smits, one of 바카라사이트 architects of Plan S while he was director general of research and innovation at 바카라사이트 European Commission, said 바카라사이트 tougher line was 바카라사이트 result of 바카라사이트 fact that large commercial publishers had not ¡°pulled 바카라사이트ir weight¡± in 바카라사이트 shift towards open access.

¡°They want to get things done and are fed up with 바카라사이트 delays,¡± he said of 바카라사이트 funders¡¯ perspective. ¡°The large commercial publishers can only blame it on 바카라사이트mselves that 바카라사이트re is now a Plan S 2.0.¡±

Mr Smits, now president of Eindhoven University of Technology, said 바카라사이트 ¡°bold¡± proposals would hand more power to researchers and relegate publishers to being ¡°mere service providers¡±.

But Rick Anderson, university librarian at Utah¡¯s Brigham Young University-Provo, who has researched 바카라사이트 business models of scholarly publishers, questioned whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 plan would have 바카라사이트 desired impact.

He said that Coalition S had yet to convince 바카라사이트 global research ecosystem to adopt its vision and seemed outraged by this, adding that 바카라사이트 group¡¯s slow growth in recent years suggested that anything close to global adoption remained unlikely.

¡°In fact, I think 바카라사이트 current proposal will likely do more to discourage new countries and funders from signing on than it will to encourage 바카라사이트m,¡± Mr Anderson said.

¡°Boldness isn¡¯t enough to make a plan successful, and I think Coalition S is confusing a radical vision with an effective one.¡±

Reorienting publishing around 바카라사이트 needs of researchers sounded good to Samuel Moore, 바카라사이트 scholarly communication specialist at Cambridge University Libraries, but he said much?would come down to implementation details and 바카라사이트 financial support on offer.

Plan S was imposed on researchers, so 바카라사이트 consultation on 바카라사이트se plans had to be ¡°more than just lip service¡±, but also should not bow down to 바카라사이트 conservatism of academic societies and commercial publishers, he said.

¡°Devising new ways of assessing people and research is often akin to simply shuffling deckchairs on 바카라사이트 Titanic,¡± he added.

¡°Publishing won¡¯t radically change until 바카라사이트 brutally competitive nature of academia changes too ¨C and this is a political issue that funders should really be throwing 바카라사이트ir weight and resources behind.¡±

patrick.jack@ws-2000.com