After 1 January 2020 scientific publications on the results of research funded by public grants provided by national and European research councils and funding bodies, must be published in compliant Open Access journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms.
(Plan S, key principle, September 4, 2018)
The European Commission, European Research Council, and the national science funding organisations of Austria, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK together fund €7.6 billion of research. In a combined initiative (Plan S), that research must be freely accessible from January 1, 2020 on: anybody must be able to freely download, translate or re-use the resulting papers.
In cases where no quality open access journals or infrastructure exist, the members of Plan S will provide incentives and support to do so.
Any open access publication fees will be funded by the funding organizations, and not individual researchers; universities, libraries and other research organizations will be asked to align their policies and strategies.
The funding organizations will monitor compliance, and punish non-compliance.
This might change the face of scientific publishing in two years time, posits Nature. If the point of punishing non-compliance isn't contentious enough, another one of Plan S's principles might be:
The 'hybrid' model of publishing is not compliant with the above principles.
As currently only 15 percent of scientific publications are open access, this would mean that scientists involved will be barred from publishing in 85% of journals, including influential titles such as Nature and Science.
Also at Science Magazine and the PLoS Blog.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05 2018, @12:24PM
The second link is also out of date and full of ramblings about "how thing used to be". The moral arguments about how electronic publication "undermines the community relationships which nourish the health of a discipline" is not well supported and is a bit jarring when I expected logical arguments.
The author raises one interesting point about physical journals being easier to browse through and increase the likelihood of reading papers that are "unrelated" to your specialty. The first part may be true in some cases, but the ease of accessing a much more expensive set of "unrelated" papers from many different journals is also a counter balance.