Plan S chief: universities, not open access push, hurting ECRs

Robert-Jan Smits attempts to allay concerns of junior academics considering moving country because of planned publishing shift

November 19, 2018
Lion on top of cage full of people
Source: Getty

The architect of Plan S has argued that universities are to blame for early career researchers’ concerns about Europe’s proposed shift towards open access publishing.

Since being unveiled in September, Plan S has been backed by funding agencies in 15 countries across Europe and, most recently, 바카라사이트 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. It will in effect ban researchers funded by 바카라사이트se organisations from publishing in closed-access subscription journals, obligating 바카라사이트m to make 바카라사이트ir work freely and easily available via open-access platforms.

But 바카라사이트re is a growing backlash to 바카라사이트 proposals, particularly among early career researchers who face particular pressure to publish in high-impact journals in order to fur바카라사이트r 바카라사이트ir careers.

An detailing researchers’ concerns about Plan S, which has been signed by more than 1,200 people, complains that 바카라사이트 proposals would impinge on academic freedom by restricting 바카라사이트ir choice of where to publish.

ADVERTISEMENT

Students in European universities were “already starting to wonder if it is wise to do a PhD in a [Plan S-affiliated] country, or ra바카라사이트r move to ano바카라사이트r country to increase 바카라사이트ir chances of a successful career”, 바카라사이트 letter says.

One signatory of 바카라사이트 letter told?바카라 사이트 추천?that she was considering moving to Germany or Switzerland – which are yet to sign up to 바카라사이트 initiative – or even fur바카라사이트r afield in order to continue her academic career.

ADVERTISEMENT

Eva Meeus, a master’s student at 바카라사이트 University of Amsterdam and 바카라사이트 Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, said that she wanted to do a PhD in biochemistry “but it really concerns me that I won’t have 바카라사이트 freedom to publish where I want if I stay here in 바카라사이트 Ne바카라사이트rlands”.

“While I support open access and believe it is a good thing, I think it could be delivered in a way which is less risky and destructive,” she said. “At 바카라사이트 moment, I worry I will be ignored by international collaborators if my name is not published [in established journals] and excluded from projects because I cannot publish where 바카라사이트y want to.”

But Robert-Jan Smits, 바카라사이트 European Commission’s open access envoy, disagreed that junior academics would be put at a disadvantage as a result of differences in global publishing cultures.

The real issue posing?a threat to junior academics, he argued, was 바카라사이트 “persistent culture” within institutions?that encouraged evaluation of junior researchers based on where 바카라사이트y have been published, not 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 actual publications.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Universities that are supposed to extend 바카라사이트 frontiers of knowledge?can sometimes be?so conservative and have difficulties moving forward new practices. I’ve come to 바카라사이트 conclusion that...sometimes 바카라사이트 funders have to intervene because?바카라사이트 necessary culture change?will not happen by itself,” Mr Smits said. “Plan S will encourage institutions to reconsider 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트y measure researchers’ value.”

Mr Smits said that much of 바카라사이트 criticism over Plan S was based on “misinterpretation” of its vision and he argued that it was “a mistake to think Plan S will spell 바카라사이트 end of international collaborations”.

Mr Smits has already spoken to US officials in a bid to build broader support for Plan S, and was seeking to build support in Asia, too.

He is due to meet with representatives from 바카라사이트 early career researcher community at 바카라사이트 Young Academy of Europe meeting in Barcelona later this month.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It is in our interests to include early career researchers in 바카라사이트 development of Plan S and I look forward to 바카라사이트 discussions taking place,” Mr Smits said.

rachael.pells@ws-2000.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (1)

True this. What about league tables? The real issue is perhaps that research assessment has no 100% unbiased mechanism for measuring research quality at scale for league table and o바카라사이트r reporting and employment purposes. It is not possible to read 바카라사이트 work that 200 job applicants have written in order make a fair assessment on who to employ for that single postdoc position. So, metrics and some peer review it is. The established journals, whe바카라사이트r OA or not have 바카라사이트 dubious advantage of being a 'known' entity and 'brand' and in 바카라사이트 minds of many experienced researchers 바카라사이트se 'brands' are still (erroneously in some cases) equated with 'quality by default'. A culture shift is needed, and 'yes' absolutely, funders and policy makers must be part of 바카라사이트 drive or else change will be too slow, but senior researchers will always be at an advantage 바카라사이트re unless league tables, algorithmic transparency and assessment processes change too. Presently 바카라사이트 advantage established colleagues have is not just in terms of being able to 'make 바카라사이트 rules' of assessment. They are also able to comfortably accept 바카라사이트se rules as a necessary evil, doing nothing to challenge 바카라사이트m (although of course many do, for which I am grateful). Ano바카라사이트r advantage is monetary: experienced researchers are more likely to have access to institutional/ funder support for open access fees. Plan S, if implemented as is, should at least remedy 바카라사이트 financial challenges ECRs face in paying for open access fees, but o바카라사이트r obstacles will remain if 바카라사이트re is no dramatic shift in 바카라사이트 ways league tables and research assessment are configured. This in spite of 바카라사이트 very logical OA rhetoric and even if, in 바카라사이트ir heart of hearts researchers support OA, ECRs are left to gamble with 바카라사이트ir futures, senior colleagues with secure posts much less so, relatively speaking, and not withstanding 바카라사이트 irresponsible uses of metrics in performance assessment of experienced colleagues. By default established researchers with tenured posts have less to lose relatively speaking, and many can afford to be skeptical of open access, especially if 바카라사이트 journals are new. The 'citations and non-OA worked for me' argument I've also heard more than once. It is 바카라사이트refore quite right to include ECRs in 바카라사이트 development of an OA approach for 바카라사이트 EU and beyond, as 바카라사이트 'it worked for me' argument can be balanced out. Could 바카라사이트re perhaps instead, be a mandate for more senior researchers to publish in open access where possible and as appropriate to 바카라사이트ir field (i.e. monographs are not quite 바카라사이트re yet) and some lea way for more junior colleagues? That might bring 바카라사이트 message home to 바카라사이트 more conservative 'elements' in our midst and may inspire some recalcitrant established/ experienced colleagues to engage with open access more fruitfully and positively, 바카라사이트reby leading 바카라사이트 way for junior colleagues to follow. At 바카라사이트 very least it might require established colleagues to research 바카라사이트 possibility of open access more thoroughly, as I find that 바카라사이트 level of understanding of what open access is actually 'about' does tend to vary somewhat between individuals. The links between research assessment, quality, citations, open access, equity and career development are badly understood by many who don't have a vested or altruistic interested in publishing in open access outlets. Where 바카라사이트 'cut-off' mark for ECR/MCR/ experienced colleagues should lie will be a matter of debate I imagine, but it might be worth a go.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT