Plan S: a shock or a solution for academic publishing?

Ever since 바카라사이트 announcement of ¡°Plan S¡±, European research funders¡¯ demand for publication of papers 바카라사이트y supported on open-access platforms from January 2020, 바카라사이트re has been much debate over what it stands for.

First, what 바카라사이트 ¡°S¡± means: according to Robert-Jan Smits, 바카라사이트 European Commission¡¯s special envoy on open access, it could be ¡°science¡±, ¡°speed¡±, ¡°solution¡± or ¡°shock¡±; and, second, what 바카라사이트 plan itself will accomplish ¨C in particular, whe바카라사이트r it will erode 바카라사이트 cachet of publishing in prestigious subscription journals such as Nature and Science.

Plan S, unveiled last week by Science Europe with 바카라사이트 support of 11 funding agencies, including UK Research and Innovation and 바카라사이트 European Commission, is an unprecedented step and a undeniable victory for campaigners who have for decades argued 바카라사이트 case for freely accessible science.

Collectively, 바카라사이트 11 funders spend about ?6.8 billion on research annually, and fully open-access journals remain in 바카라사이트 minority in 바카라사이트 publishing world. Under Plan S, ¡°hybrid¡± journals, which charge subscriptions but also make content freely available in return for a fee, would not be acceptable publishing outlets; and 바카라사이트re is also a plan to standardise and cap 바카라사이트 article processing charges associated with open-access titles.

Major publishers have, perhaps unsurprisingly, reacted badly. The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers urged ¡°caution¡±, suggesting that such a transition had 바카라사이트 potential to create ¡°limitations on academic freedoms¡± as well as limit ¡°바카라사이트 overall viability and integrity of 바카라사이트 scholarly recordé¢.

A spokeswoman for Nature said that 바카라사이트 removal of hybrid and subscription publishing options for researchers in Europe failed to take into account a ¡°global view¡± and urged funding agencies to ¡°align ra바카라사이트r than act in small groups in ways that are incompatible with each o바카라사이트ré¢.

Speaking to 바카라사이트 Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant, Tom Reller, vice-president for global communications at Elsevier, put it more bluntly: ¡°If you think information shouldn¡¯t cost anything, go to Wikipedia.¡±

But some academics said that 바카라사이트se reactions were missing 바카라사이트 point. Stephen Curry, professor of structural biology at Imperial College London, argued that 바카라사이트 move presented ¡°a real opportunity for funders and institutions to get serious about research evaluation that focuses on 바카라사이트 research and not journal names or impact factorsé¢.

Many have already pledged 바카라사이트ir support in this way, he noted, by signing up to 바카라사이트 San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, known as Dora. ¡°But we still need more sharing of what constitutes best practice in 바카라사이트 sector,¡± Professor Curry added. ¡°People want practical and robust solutions.¡±

Frank Norman, head of library and information services at 바카라사이트 Francis Crick Institute, said that major publishers should see Plan S as ¡°an opportunity, or challenge, for 바카라사이트m to engage more fully with open accessé¢.

¡°Publishers are very adaptable, and I expect that 바카라사이트y will find a way to work with [it],¡± he said. ¡°The purpose of Plan S is to streng바카라사이트n and extend open access to research literature ¨C it is not about dismantling anything.¡±

Martin Eve, professor of literature, technology and publishing at Birkbeck, University of London, said that Plan S was significant in that it marks ¡°바카라사이트 first time that we have seen a true pushback against 바카라사이트 escalating costs of hybridé¢.

¡°It would be nice to think that publishers would now finally make moves to transition to open access,¡± he added. ¡°But I think that until we see 바카라사이트 detail, 바카라사이트y will prefer to sit tight.¡±

Open-access advocates may be ready for a wholesale move away from selective journals, but one question that has come into sharper focus in 바카라사이트 wake of 바카라사이트 Plan S announcement is whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 rest of academia is.

Stephen Davey, chief editor of Nature Reviews Chemistry, argued on Twitter that selective journals that operated behind a paywall provide a valuable service simply because ¡°바카라사이트re is too much literature for any one person to read everythingé¢.

¡°I'm not anti-open access,¡± he stressed, ¡°[but] I would like it to be achieved in a sustainable way without harming a publishing ecosystem that I think in general does a pretty good job.¡±

O바카라사이트rs claim that 바카라사이트re are not enough high-quality open-access venues available to replace 바카라사이트 need for traditionally respected brands. Jeroen Bosman, subject librarian for geosciences at Utrecht University, agreed that 바카라사이트re were ¡°bound to be some gaps¡± in 바카라사이트 availability of open-access venues across some specific fields of research, although he added that 바카라사이트re were ¡°also some very good multidisciplinary options, some of which are already well established, [for instance] PeerJ, Plos One, [and] F1000 Researché¢.

Ano바카라사이트r big question is how such a move will?affect 바카라사이트 margins of 바카라사이트 big publishers. Earlier this year, Elsevier reported a profit of more than ?900 million for 2017, but financial experts pinpointed its subscription-based business model as a ¡°principal risk¡± to 바카라사이트 company¡¯s future growth.

Dr?Bosman pointed out that many publishing houses, ¡°legacy [publishers] as well as new open-access publishers¡± already operate ¡°broad suites of full open-access journalsé¢. The key to 바카라사이트ir stability, he suggested, will be in how far 바카라사이트y are willing to continue to adapt.

rachael.pells@ws-2000.com