Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Tuesday November 06 2018, @10:22PM   Printer-friendly
from the information-wants-to-be-free dept.

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

Related Stories

Plan S: Radical Open-Access Science Initiative in Europe 23 comments

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

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: 2) by edIII on Tuesday November 06 2018, @10:59PM

    by edIII (791) on Tuesday November 06 2018, @10:59PM (#758734)

    That's good news for today. Along with Elsvier being blocked along with Sci-hub. The RELX group can burn in hell, and this is one more nail in the coffin. Sci-hub, unlike Elsevier, is quite adept at getting around blocking too :)

    --
    Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @11:13PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @11:13PM (#758740)

    It pushes Science further into the existing paradigm, and will make research ever more dependent on State funding.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @11:18PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @11:18PM (#758744)

      The authors make peanuts on the articles, if they make anything at all.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @11:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @11:36PM (#758751)

        That's the existing paradigm, and this makes it more entrenched.

        It becomes stupid to put your own resources in research, because your competition will be seeking resources from the State. As a result, everyone abandons "private" research, and the whole of Science will become political; the lack of economic signals will cause a misallocation of resources, and research will become more overhead than output.

  • (Score: 2) by black6host on Tuesday November 06 2018, @11:22PM

    by black6host (3827) on Tuesday November 06 2018, @11:22PM (#758747) Journal

    You know what Plan S is? I've got a feeling it stands for Plan Shit! Yes indeedy: https://gizmodo.com/bill-gates-showed-off-a-jar-of-poop-to-get-people-jazze-1830262749 [gizmodo.com]

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by RandomFactor on Tuesday November 06 2018, @11:32PM (1 child)

    by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 06 2018, @11:32PM (#758750) Journal

    I'm trying to think of what mightl be lost by these companies going away. Why would we want to keep these publishers around?
     
    The only thing i could come up with is that these organization will eventually die and go to the grave clutching their copyright locked research with them. Not really a reason.
     
    So i went and looked at https://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/tutorials-and-resources/curious-of-the-benefits-of-publishing-with-elsevier [elsevier.com]
     
    As I read through this i was struck with aspects of similarity with the music publishing business. Helping researchers/artists, promoting their research/songs, lots of easy direct substitutions.
     
    The services provided don't need to be tied to the actual publishing and are the typical 'value-add' used to justify overcharging. I really don't see much reason anyone who wasn't already heavily entrenched with one would want to enter into that kind of relationship.
     
    Anyone have a different take?

    --
    В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @11:38PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 06 2018, @11:38PM (#758753)

      They already got their greedy tendrils in the funding of research, and now they are going to control publishing, too.

      You're putting government in control of the entire stack. That's really stupid.

(1)