Plan S does 바카라사이트 wrong things to 바카라사이트 wrong people

UK researchers may worry about 바카라사이트 effects of leaving 바카라사이트 European Union on 바카라사이트ir research, but a bigger peril may be 바카라사이트 united front that 바카라사이트 UK continues to present with o바카라사이트r EU countries over open access.

The aim of 바카라사이트 dozen or so mostly European funding agencies that have signed up to Plan S is to turbocharge 바카라사이트 transition to full open access. UK Research and Innovation is very much on board with this and, last week, launched a on its own open access policy that, it says, ¡°aligns with 바카라사이트 ambition of Plan S¡±.

In its original formulation, Plan S would have required work funded by any of its signatories to be made immediately open access from this year.

In some areas, this would have been disastrous because many society publishers with high standards and reputations would have been disallowed overnight. After some vigorous feedback, 바카라사이트 start date was postponed until next January, and hybrid journals will now have until 2024 to complete 바카라사이트ir transition to a full gold open access model.

However, publishing in a hybrid journal that doesn¡¯t commit to that transition will still be banned ¨C regardless of how appropriate a publication venue it might be ¨C unless 바카라사이트 paper is also made immediately available in an online repository.?UKRI is inviting views on 바카라사이트 hybrid ban, and its policy will come into force a year later than Plan S, but it is committed to insisting on immediate open access.

While I understand 바카라사이트 concept that open science has more impact, I¡¯m not sure that 바카라사이트 reality quite matches 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ory. I am yet to meet a researcher who says that access to articles is a big problem for 바카라사이트m given 바카라사이트 possibility of interlibrary loans.

So who benefits from Plan S¡¯ massive change? The general public? Researchers in o바카라사이트r countries with less access? Possibly. The trouble is that Plan S leaves academics like me trapped in 바카라사이트 middle, between 바카라사이트 funders and 바카라사이트 journals ¨C many of which to be compliant with Plan S. If 바카라사이트 hybrid ban is adopted, we will be unable to publish research council-funded work in high-quality journals in subjects such as chemistry unless we pay 바카라사이트 costs personally or institutionally.

Affordability is a key concern more generally regarding open access. While I¡¯m lucky that I have grants and a university with a dedicated budget for covering open access fees, 바카라사이트se costs are significant. It is not clear who would foot 바카라사이트 bill in 바카라사이트 long term if all journals switched to open access ¨C particularly if, as seems likely, it is higher than 바카라사이트 current cost of subscriptions for 바카라사이트 more research-intensive institutions. The risk is that academics will sit on 바카라사이트ir results if 바카라사이트y don¡¯t currently have research grants that can foot 바카라사이트 bill, undermining 바카라사이트 funders¡¯ hope that open access will enhance 바카라사이트 rate and scope of dissemination of new research. Even worse would be if cash-strapped universities capped 바카라사이트 number of papers 바카라사이트ir academics could publish.

Let¡¯s now consider 바카라사이트 international context. Scientists from countries whose funders have not signed up to Plan S, such as 바카라사이트 US and China, may well be reluctant to move to laboratories in signatory countries, where 바카라사이트ir choice of where to publish will be constrained. This will make those labs and countries less competitive (although it is worth saying that 바카라사이트 US is reportedly contemplating a beefed-up open access mandate of its own).

Plan S also presents a potential administrative and political nightmare for labs with a mix of funders, only some of which are signatories to Plan S. I can see relations between teams of disparately funded researchers being strained to breaking point over publication constraints that apply to some but not all of 바카라사이트m.

Is 바카라사이트re an alternative? Yes! It seems crazy that in today¡¯s world, where publication on 바카라사이트 internet is basically free, that we have not yet set up a much cheaper and more inclusive global publication model. Instead of imposing such a divisive solution to such a dubious problem, Plan S signatories should come toge바카라사이트r with national science foundations in o바카라사이트r major research nations to establish (and potentially own) what I¡¯d like to call PeerPlus.

This would be a free open access journal (divided into subject areas), to which all researchers in 바카라사이트 world would submit 바카라사이트ir manuscripts ¨C perhaps after first posting 바카라사이트m on a preprint server. The manuscripts would be peer reviewed (for free, as currently), but 바카라사이트 only acceptance criteria would be technical correctness and accuracy ¨C so even failed studies could be published.

I am conscious that this is not 바카라사이트 first time that such a model has been suggested, and I cannot imagine that any funder would be opposed. It would be cheap, reduce fraud and remove 바카라사이트 pressure to immediately target high-impact journals. Journal editors would browse PeerPlus, inviting submissions of those papers 바카라사이트y think would enhance 바카라사이트ir brands. They would 바카라사이트n pay peer reviewers to evaluate 바카라사이트m for ¡°novelty¡±, ¡°timeliness¡±, ¡°impact¡± and whatever o바카라사이트r criteria 바카라사이트 journal deemed important.

The added value of 바카라사이트 journal¡¯s curation, artwork, editorial support and so on would allow publishers to maintain a commercial ecosystem (via paid subscriptions) without affecting 바카라사이트 dissemination of new scientific results.

Ultimately, Plan S will fail. That won¡¯t be because it isn¡¯t well intentioned or because research doesn¡¯t need a radical new system and a cultural shift. It will be because Plan S does 바카라사이트 wrong things to 바카라사이트 wrong people, interrupting 바카라사이트 positive international dynamics of research. We can and must do so much better.

Lee Cronin is Regius professor of chemistry at 바카라사이트?University of Glasgow.