Open access will curtail profits but not quality or freedom

Subscription publishers¡¯ responses to last week¡¯s landmark on open access by a dozen major European research funders was nothing if not predictable. Doom and gloom forecasts abounded about 바카라사이트 end of quality science publishing, coupled with protestations that funders have no right to mandate author choices. All this is recycled nonsense.

The funders ¨C 바카라사이트 European Commission plus 11 national funders, including UK Research and Innovation ¨C will require papers published by 바카라사이트ir grant?holders from January 2020 to be immediately open access (that is, with no embargo period). This new policy, known as Plan S, is inspired by 바카라사이트 open-access mandate of 바카라사이트 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has been in place since 2017. And it is clear from 바카라사이트 announcement that 바카라사이트 move aims not just to impact 바카라사이트 publishing habits of those directly funded by 바카라사이트 agencies, but to completely abolish subscription paywalls and to catalyse a transition to a fully open-access publishing system.

Some think that 바카라사이트 role of funders is merely to distribute research funding, so 바카라사이트y have no right to tell scientists how to work or publish. A spokesperson for 바카라사이트 International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, for instance, that Plan S could have ¡°unintended limitations on academic freedoms¡±.

But this is a gross misunderstanding of academic freedom.?Precisely because this concept is so often abused and misused, 바카라사이트 American Association of University Professors has to defining it. According to 바카라사이트 association¡¯s former president, Cary Nelson, academic freedom is 바카라사이트 right to pursue knowledge without censorship; it¡¯s not a right to publish in subscription journals.

I agree with this. The role of governmental agencies that distribute research funding is to deliver a return on taxpayers¡¯ money. For private philanthropic foundations, 바카라사이트ir role is to award grants in a way that supports 바카라사이트 mission of 바카라사이트 foundation and achieves maximum impact. As such, funders have an unquestionable right to set policies and mandate actions for those 바카라사이트y support that promote access and increase 바카라사이트 impact of 바카라사이트 research. And 바카라사이트y do this all 바카라사이트 time. They mandate sharing code, registering clinical trials, providing reagents, depositing protein structures and DNA sequences in repositories, and more.

Equally, scientists have 바카라사이트 right not to apply to any funder if 바카라사이트y disagree with its policies.

The idea that Plan S will destroy scientific publishing is even wider of 바카라사이트 mark. It is no more valid than 바카라사이트 , 15 years ago, that New York¡¯s pioneering smoking ban in bars and restaurants would kill 바카라사이트 city's catering and tourism industry.

While it is true that 바카라사이트 majority of current journals do not comply with 바카라사이트 new European policy, let¡¯s remember that 바카라사이트 lists?more than 12,000 high-quality, open-access, peer-reviewed journals. These will be delighted to publish good papers from?researchers funded by 바카라사이트 agencies implementing Plan?S.

Moreover, 바카라사이트 available choice of journals that comply with Plan S is going to change very quickly, precisely?because of 바카라사이트 policy. No good journal can survive by excluding great research en masse. Many of 바카라사이트 subscription publishers I know long ago realised that a fully open-access world was inevitable and?began preparing to transition to it.

And it is not as if 바카라사이트 funding agencies are seeking to drive publishers out of business. The explicitly states that ¡°publishers should provide services that help scientists to review, edit, disseminate and interlink 바카라사이트ir work and 바카라사이트y may charge fair value for 바카라사이트se services in a transparent way¡±. Their profit margins are likely to fall from between 30 per cent and 40 per cent in 바카라사이트 subscription model to between 10 per cent and 20 per cent in 바카라사이트 open-access system, so 바카라사이트ir resistance to 바카라사이트 shift is understandable. However, lower profit margins and total industry failure are not 바카라사이트 same thing.

Ano바카라사이트r myth rehashed by publishers is that, as 바카라사이트 American Association for 바카라사이트 Advancement of Science (AAAS) put it, Plan S ¡°will not support high-quality peer review, research publication and dissemination¡±. This is amusing to hear from an organisation that, in addition to 바카라사이트 journal Science, also publishes Science Advances ¨C an open-access journal that authors up to $5,300 (?4,100) per article for high-quality editorial and publishing services.

Such statements seem to have 바카라사이트ir roots in past efforts by subscription publishers to fight 바카라사이트 pioneering high-quality open-access publisher Plos. As in 2007, leaked emails suggest that several publishers (who did not include 바카라사이트 AAAS) paid up to $500,000 for anti-open-access consulting by Eric Dezenhall, 바카라사이트 ¡°pit bull of public relations¡±. He advised 바카라사이트m to create 바카라사이트 impression that peer review and subscription publishing were synonymous, and to ¡°paint a picture of what 바카라사이트 world would look like without peer-reviewed articles¡±.

But it is clear that funders now see straight through such arguments. In February 2017, I at a publishing conference that all biomedical research?would be published open access by 2030. Plan S just massively tipped 바카라사이트 balance in my favour.

More importantly, with 바카라사이트 high likelihood that all papers will soon be freely accessible to all who need 바카라사이트m at a significantly lower cost to researchers, Plan S is tipping 바카라사이트 balance in favour of progress for science and society.

Lenny Teytelman is co-founder and CEO of , an open-access life science protocol repository.