Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the free-science dept.

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.


Original Submission   Alternate Submission

Related Stories

Paywall: A Documentary About the Movement for Open-Access Science Publishing 9 comments

Documentary puts lens on the open-access movement upending scientific publishing

Jason Schmitt was working at Atlantic Records when the online site Napster disrupted the music industry by making copyrighted songs freely available. Now, the communications and media researcher at Clarkson University in Potsdam, New York, is pushing for a similar disruption of academic publishing with Paywall, a documentary about the open-access movement that debuts today in a Washington, D.C., theater. "I don't think that it's right that for-profit publishers can make 35%–40% profit margins. The content is provided for them for free by academics," Schmitt, who produced the film, says.

The documentary explores the impact of Sci-Hub, a website that provides pirated versions of paywalled papers for free online, and interviews academics and publishing figures. Schmitt says many large publishers refused to go on camera—although representatives from Science and Nature did—and he is not impressed that several have begun publishing some open-access journals. "Elsevier is as much to open access as McDonald's fast food is to healthy," he says.

Sci-Hub and Library Genesis.

Related:


Original Submission

Wellcome Trust and Gates Foundation Join "Plan S" Open-Access Initiative 7 comments

In win for open access, two major funders won't cover publishing in hybrid journals

Plan S, the open-access (OA) initiative launched by the European Commission and Science Europe in September, has gained two major new members. The Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—two of the world's largest private foundations that support research—announced today they are joining a consortium of 11 European funding agencies in requiring their funded research to be immediately free for all to read on publication.

The two new partners add a lot of funding muscle to the effort to require scientists to publish their papers in journals that make their content free to the public, instead of charging subscriptions. The existing Plan S coalition partners, represented by Science Europe, collectively spend about $8.7 billion on research. Wellcome, based in London, funds about $1.3 billion of biomedical research per year, whereas the Seattle, Washington–based Gates Foundation spends more than $1.2 billion on global health R&D.

The largest part of the policy change is that as of January 2020, Wellcome and Gates will no longer cover the cost of their grantees publishing in so-called hybrid OA journals, which have both subscription and free content. Most scientific journals now follow that hybrid business model, which allows authors to pay a fee if they want to make their articles OA. For the past decade, Wellcome has allowed its grantees to pay these fees, in part because it viewed them as a way to help publishers finance a switch in their business models to full OA. "We no longer believe it's a transition," says Robert Kiley, head of open research at Wellcome. "We're looking to bring about a change where all research is open access."

Previously: Plan S: Radical Open-Access Science Initiative in Europe


Original Submission

China Backs "Plan S" for Open-Access Research 15 comments

China backs bold plan to tear down journal paywalls

In a huge boost to the open-access movement, librarians and funders in China have said that they intend to make the results of publicly funded research free to read immediately on publication.

The move, announced at an open-access meeting this week in Berlin, includes a pledge of support for Plan S, a bold initiative launched in September by a group of European funders to ensure that, by 2020, their scientists make papers immediately open.

It is not yet clear when Chinese organizations will begin implementing new policies, or whether they will adopt all of Plan S's details, but Robert-Jan Smits, the chief architect of Plan S, says the stance is a ringing endorsement for his initiative. "This is a crucial step forward for the global open-access movement," he says. "We knew China was reflecting to join us — but that it would join us so soon and unambiguously is an enormous surprise."

In three position papers, China's National Science Library (NSL), its National Science and Technology Library (NSTL) and the Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), a major research funder, all said that they support the efforts of Plan S "to transform, as soon as possible, research papers from publicly funded projects into immediate open access after publication, and we support a wide range of flexible and inclusive measures to achieve this goal". "We demand that publishers should not increase their subscription prices on the grounds of the transformation from subscription journals to open access publishing," the papers say.

Previously: Plan S: Radical Open-Access Science Initiative in Europe
Wellcome Trust and Gates Foundation Join "Plan S" Open-Access Initiative


Original Submission

Plan S Open Access Project Continues to Gain Support, Face Criticism 9 comments

Will the world embrace Plan S, the radical proposal to mandate open access to science papers?

How far will Plan S spread?

Since the September 2018 launch of the Europe-backed program to mandate immediate open access (OA) to scientific literature, 16 funders in 13 countries have signed on. That's still far shy of Plan S's ambition: to convince the world's major research funders to require immediate OA to all published papers stemming from their grants. Whether it will reach that goal depends in part on details that remain to be settled, including a cap on the author charges that funders will pay for OA publication. But the plan has gained momentum: In December 2018, China stunned many by expressing strong support for Plan S. This month, a national funding agency in Africa is expected to join, possibly followed by a second U.S. funder. Others around the world are considering whether to sign on.

Plan S, scheduled to take effect on 1 January 2020, has drawn support from many scientists, who welcome a shake-up of a publishing system that can generate large profits while keeping taxpayer-funded research results behind paywalls. But publishers (including AAAS, which publishes Science) are concerned, and some scientists worry that Plan S could restrict their choices.

[...] For now, North America is not following suit. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was the first Plan S participant outside Europe, and another private funder may follow. But U.S. federal agencies are sticking to policies developed after a 2013 White House order to make peer-reviewed papers on work they funded freely available within 12 months of publication. "We don't anticipate making any changes to our model," said Brian Hitson of the U.S. Department of Energy in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, who directs that agency's public access policy.

Previously: Plan S: Radical Open-Access Science Initiative in Europe
Wellcome Trust and Gates Foundation Join "Plan S" Open-Access Initiative
China Backs "Plan S" for Open-Access Research


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:04PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:04PM (#730368)

    Why are they delaying this? Actually, all the old papers should be released too. Recent papers are mostly junk in many fields (psych, medical).

    • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:49PM (1 child)

      by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:49PM (#730401) Homepage Journal

      The easy way to release old papers would be to change the copyright laws.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:08PM (#730439)

        The easy way to release old papers would be to change the copyright laws.

        Currently, the easiest way to get the old papers is using scihub. I have no qualms of doing it.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Kymation on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:52PM (1 child)

      by Kymation (1047) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:52PM (#730402)

      The delay is to allow time for new open-access journals to be started. Or possibly for existing journals to change their policies, although I don't expect this to happen. It's more likely that the existing journals will sue to block or delay implementation to protect their cash cows.

      Existing papers are already under a restrictive contract. It's unlikely they will be freed without somebody paying a lot of money to make that happen. Again, very unlikely.

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:15PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:15PM (#730471) Journal

        The delay is to allow time for the existing journals to plan their legal attack so that science can end up becoming more privately profitable silos of information and patents.

        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:28PM (9 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:28PM (#730388) Journal

    I've tried to find open journals, and not had much luck. There are a ton of predatory journals that exist solely to collect those outrageously high fees of several hundred dollars that seem to be the current going rate for the author pays model. That so many predatory journals exist is a clear sign that journals ask too much of authors. It always seemed to me backwards that authors should have to pay journals anything at all, if any payments are required, it ought to be journals paying authors.

    But then, I've learned that antique car shows are backwards that way too. I thought they were events at which the public could view antique cars up close, for a small admission fee. But no. The car owners are the ones who pay to enter their cars. There are so many car enthusiasts eager to show off their collectible antique cars, their babies, that "car owner pays" is the business model of choice.

    Academic publishing is a huge racket anyway, and I'm happy to hear the EU is going to squash the whole damn thing flat. Meantime, I'm stuck with the old fashioned way of trying to publish: preemptively transfer all your rights to the journal, and have your paper sit in limbo with you not allowed to try submitting anywhere else for the several months they take to review it. But you can ignore their dire sounding moralizing and try to spread your work around as much as possible. Upload to Arxiv even before you get notice your paper was accepted or rejected, link to it on ResearchGate and ORCID, and make sure to drop Sci-Hub a copy. Dare those academic publishers to make one peep of protest about you distributing your own work.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:55PM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:55PM (#730428)

      There are a ton of predatory journals that exist solely to collect those outrageously high fees of several hundred dollars that seem to be the current going rate for the author pays model.

      Well, someone pays? You are saying that whoever funds your research, can't fund those measly publishing costs? Really?

      https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ [plos.org]
      https://www.elsevier.com/about/open-science/open-access/open-access-journals [elsevier.com]

      Seems to be quite a few categories.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:14PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:14PM (#730447)

        You are saying that whoever funds your research, can't fund those measly publishing costs?

        Any publishing cost is one cost too many, given that all the review work is not carried by the publisher and is unpaid.
        Under these circumstances, what's the benefit of having a publisher? Why's a simple web site, supporting with a trivial publishing workflow, not enough?

        • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:45PM

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:45PM (#730457) Journal

          No one funds my research. I am not so lucky as to be employed at an institution that will do that for their scientists. It might seem nice of a university to help their researchers by paying the author fees, but actually that is a major chilling effect that helps big organizations maintain a monopoly on research. It's damned unfair to the little guys.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday September 05 2018, @01:50AM

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday September 05 2018, @01:50AM (#730583) Journal

          The advantage of a journal instead of a random website is vetting. Scientific communication depends on being able to find relevant, high-quality research. Anybody can have a website or slap something up. But how will other researchers find it? If they do, how will they know it's not a BS finding?

          Yes, a lot of BS gets into journals too -- less so in top tier ones in a given discipline. Journals do help with the filter and help people be able to locate findings... And editing and review often does significantly improve articles beyond the raw submissions.

          As to why it costs -- well, as with just about anything, if you've never been involved in trying to run something, you likely don't really how much work is involved. I tried to outline some of the costs as part of my post here [soylentnews.org].

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:10PM (#730444)

      and make sure to drop Sci-Hub a copy

      Thank you.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by MyOpinion on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:18PM (1 child)

      by MyOpinion (6561) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:18PM (#730448) Homepage Journal

      Academic publishing is a huge racket anyway, and I'm happy to hear the EU is going to squash the whole damn thing flat.

      Mostly agreed, but I am not going to hold my breath, and I would not expect "the EU" to side with the taxpayer and gallantly fence off parasites like "elsevier" et. al. They are terrified of things flat.

      This lot adds practically no value to the already funded research (funded for by the public, through taxation), they throw breadcrumbs to the referees or even nothing at all, they charge exorbitant amounts both for publishing (in the thousands USD) and reading (in the tens and hundreds USD), and greedily suck universities' budgets via "bulk subscription fees".

      In my experience and understanding, they only serve as career boosters: just a couple of publications in any of the "elsevier" puppets can pretty much guarantee an academic job within months.

      Each university, research institute or anyone doing research really should be able to publish on the institution's webpage, the infrastructure is already there.

      --
      Truth is like a Lion: you need not defend it; let it loose, and it defends itself. https://discord.gg/3FScNwc
      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:40PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:40PM (#730455)

        Mostly agreed, but I am not going to hold my breath, and I would not expect "the EU" to side with the taxpayer and gallantly fence off parasites like "elsevier" et. al. They are terrified of things flat.

        Right! They can fine Microsoft and Google on the tune of hundred millions and billions, ask retroactive taxes from Apple... but they are terrified by Elsevier et. al.
        You know it makes sense.

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:55PM

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:55PM (#730459)

      The rule in particle physics is "publish on arxiv for openness, then publish in some closed journal for citations" - so check arxiv. IOP and APS run some good open journals.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:03PM (#730464)

      Perhaps this is the direction [sciencemag.org] the pendulum is swinging now?

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:44PM (4 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:44PM (#730456) Journal

    I reckon they can publish anywhere they want, as long as the paper is not based on research funded by the EU.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MostCynical on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:52PM (1 child)

      by MostCynical (2589) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:52PM (#730494) Journal

      from TFA

      result from research funded by public grants provided by participating national and European research councils and funding bodies, must be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms.”

      So not *just* the EU, but member states' funding bodies..

      --
      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05 2018, @07:20AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05 2018, @07:20AM (#730643)

        Publicly funded research should be publicly accessible. Ditto software. [fsfe.org]

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Wednesday September 05 2018, @08:35AM (1 child)

      by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 05 2018, @08:35AM (#730660)

      More to the point, they can publish anywhere they want as long as at least one place is open access.

      Of course the closed journals want exclusives - _that_ is what ain't gonna happen no more.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday September 05 2018, @11:33AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 05 2018, @11:33AM (#730691) Journal

        Right you are. 't'll be interesting to see what position the non-open publishers will adopt re exclusivity.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by pTamok on Wednesday September 05 2018, @07:23AM (2 children)

    by pTamok (3042) on Wednesday September 05 2018, @07:23AM (#730644)

    While many characterise this as a fight between publishers business models and openness, not all academics are against the current model. These two articles by an academic are worth a read, even if you disagree with him.

    Geoffrey Sampson: The Death of Learned Journals [archive.org]

    Geoffrey Sampson: Against electronifying academic literature [archive.org]

    I can see merit in his arguments, but at the same time wonder if the costs (the profits the publishers make, the lack of open access) of providing the arrangement he prefers outweigh the benefits. I have insufficient knowledge about the area to be able to offer a well-founded opinion - at which point I have to defer to experts who can make such a decision.

    His home-page is here: https://www.grsampson.net/index.html. [grsampson.net]

    His Erdős Number is 5.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05 2018, @11:43AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05 2018, @11:43AM (#730693)

      The first link is way out of date (written in 2006) and the author's predictions did not come true. He overestimated the "value added" by editors, in terms of writing quality and typesetting (using special non-standard characters), and the need for a physical journal to act as curator/aggregator of worthwhile content. I don't know his field, but his arguments certainly haven't held for biomedical sciences.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05 2018, @12:24PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 05 2018, @12:24PM (#730706)

      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.

(1)