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
Related Stories
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.
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
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
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday January 06 2019, @03:13PM (1 child)
First, let me be perfectly clear that I am fully in favor of having open-access to all scientific and scholarly publication, especially any that is publicly funded. However, as I discussed at length in a comment on a story about Plan S *not* linked in the summary here [soylentnews.org], there are a LOT of serious issues with this proposal. Other comments in reply to mine there also bring up further serious issues.
Bottom line is Plan S sounds like less of a "plan" than simply "dropping a bomb" on how researchers get funded and the vast majority of options for how they publish their research, and just hoping that everything works out okay.
It's no wonder goals are "still far shy of Plan S's ambition."
It's also a massive understatement to say the goal depends "in part on details that remain to be settled." This is a plan without most substantive details worked out other than "You must publish in open-access journals. Funding for publishing in them will magically appear. If your field has no significant or quality open-access journals, they will also magically appear." It's no wonder nobody is signing on.
And seriously, that seems to be the case -- despite the headline declaring the project "continues to gain support," where did that claim come from? It's not in the title of the linked article. And, as far as I can tell, it's basically false. If we believe the links given in the summary here to previous articles on SN, the total number of funders in early November was 13 after the Wellcome Trust and Gates Foundation [soylentnews.org] signed on. After that, the other three appear to come from the Chinese sources mentioned in the other linked article, giving the cited total of 16.
Why is this significant? Because, aside from publisher skepticism (obvious that they would be roadblocks), the "some scientists" who are worried about Plan S actually included roughly 1600 researchers signing an open letter [google.com] about serious concerns. (And for reasons that are too complicated to get into here, a huge number of those signatories are from chemistry-related disciplines due to a more coordinated campaign in that field. The number of concerned researchers is likely a lot higher.) Basically, they claimed Plan S had great ambition but was seriously lacking in pragmatic details about how any of this would work in the real world.
At the end of November, the Plan S supporters released supposed "guidance" with more details (found here [coalition-s.org]), partly to address concerns that the Plan was severely lacking in details.
Except if you actually read those "guidance" statements, they mostly do little more than restate the vague Plan S proposal mandates with more words. They are seriously lacking in insight on who exactly is going to cover publication costs. They make incredibly vague statements like, "cOAlition S members will ensure financial support for OA publishing via the prescribed routes to compliance." Okay, sounds good right? If you join the Plan S group, the funding agencies must "ensure financial support" for publishing. But will they actually provide money for publication fees? Well... a couple sentences later: "cOAlition S emphasises that the individual cOAlition S members are not obliged to enter into transformative agreements nor to fund APCs that are covered by such agreements."
Oh. Huh. Let me translate that for you. See, in most fields, 90%+ of major journals are not open-access. Which means if this plan goes into effect, many researchers will be stuck with nearly nowhere to publish. (Some fields have basically no established legitimate high-quality open-access journals.) Plan S got serious criticism for this, so they backpedaled and got a little more realistic -- they figured they'd support publication in "hybrid" journals that might place a temporary moratorium on open-access publication, as long as the journals agree to a commitment to transform to an open-access model within three years. This is what a "transformative agreement" is. But the statement I quoted says that Plan S supporting groups don't have fund APCs (that is, the fees open-access journals charge for publication-related expenses -- from copyediting to hosting online articles to basic administration costs) for these journals that have even made commitments to transforming to full open-access.
So who is going to pay for research to be published while these journals are switching over to an open-access model? There are serious logistical and financial issues to be dealt with here. Also, "ensure financial support" even for true OA journals is vague. In previous statements, the Plan S people basically implied that universities should kick in money to support publication because they'll save money in library subscription fees for journals. Except there's no mechanism to monitor that such funding will transfer. Plan S just makes profound statements like researchers at poor universities should not be put at a disadvantage, with no mechanism for guaranteeing funding opportunities.
And if there are no OA journals in your field, "cOAlition S intends to jointly support mechanisms for establishing Open Access journals, platforms, and infrastructures where necessary in order to provide routes to open access publication in all disciplines." Okay, they "intend" to do that, but how? "cOAlition S members will collectively establish incentives for establishing Open Access journals/platforms or flipping existing journals to Open Access, in particular where there are gaps and needs." Okay, so now it's up the grant providers to make "incentives" for publishers to switch... except the grant providers aren't even asked to chip in for publication fees in journals that COMMIT to transforming to open access. So how precisely are these "incentives" supposed to happen?
Anyhow, I could on about the serious lack of detail here. But let's just note one major takeaway: 13 major funders had signed on by early November, before the "guidance" stuff came out from Plan S that was supposed to assuage the concerns of researchers. Since the "guidance" came out, if TFA is accurate and there are now 16 funders, the ONLY funders to sign on are apparently the Chinese groups, which may be mostly a political decision. (Chinese journals and researchers often don't have the prestige of many Western outlets for publication, and this OA project also threatens to bifurcate the research world because collaboration may not be possible for researchers across borders if they don't support these European guidelines... China probably hopes to capitalize on Western collaboration and other opportunities in this new model.)
What does that tell you? In early November we had 13 funders. Despite the "guidance" document released in late November, no other European or Western funding agencies have signed on to this agreement. That seems a SERIOUS concern to me that the Plan S people haven't addressed concerns from researchers or funders, let alone publishers.
So where is the evidence that Project S "continues to gain support"? My perception is that it's at best treading water, and perhaps floundering a bit. The best the Plan S people seem to do in their "guidance" is say they'll commission a couple "studies" to look at publication costs to assuage concerns. That's not a "plan" yet.
I seriously hope something shifts soon in the research world to make open-access publication a reality relatively quickly. But if Plan S doesn't have an actual PLAN, it's going to be incredibly disruptive for the researchers who are bound by it, disruptive for many academic fields in the countries covered by it, and if it can't fix this stuff it will likely have low commitment, which means it will simply fail -- and likely make the current publishers stronger in the process. It needs some actual PLANS for the transition.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday January 06 2019, @11:58PM
-on't.
There are damn good reasons for paper books. Consider that when Real Soon Now I publish dead-tree collections of my essays and articles, I will _also_ publish hardbound editions on acid free cotton or hemp paper.
Even if we can somehow solve Bit Rot, there's nothing quite like a library that's not in a blast zone for our culture to be preserved through a nuclear war until its rebuilt. (Then blows itself up all over again.)
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Sunday January 06 2019, @03:14PM (1 child)
in something in scope, the 'within 12 months of publication' bit will be reinterpreted outward.
The problem is that a time limit imposed by one branch can be changed by that same branch. If people are used to 12 months, it is no big deal to make it 24, then 48, then...
Now admittedly 12 months was a move toward openness as implemented and in a perfect world would be reduced or eliminated rather than increased, but that's not what the money is pushing for. And as we have seen (Disney) money talks and easily overrides the best interests of the people and country.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday January 06 2019, @03:41PM
I think this is much less of a concern here than in your Disney scenario. There are three groups to consider here: (1) the funders, who provide research funding to researchers, (2) the researchers, who actually do the research, and (3) the publishers, who are the only ones that profit from holding back access.
In the case of Disney (and other corporations), all three of these groups are basically within the same corporation and managed by the same people. So those deciding what content to create and those creating the content all have a serious interest in protecting the profits from their work.
Scientists and most scholars don't make profits off of their research -- it's just the publishers who are making profits. And the funders are really the ones involved with the current discussion about mandating open-access. Scientific publishing groups may certainly have lobbyists, but they will have little influence over those who fund research (often non-profit organizations, scholarly and humanitarian groups, as well as corporate interests who care about the RESULTS of the research, not the publication of it). Perhaps publisher lobbyists could influence U.S. policy on federal grants, but they have little chance of seriously affecting the vast majority of grant-providing entities.
The only people who may convince the funders to broaden the policy for closed-access will be the actual researchers, who deal directly with them (and who are being squeezed in the middle of proposals like Plan S). But those researchers don't actually get a cut of the profits, so their interest for a lenient policy toward closed-access will mostly only exist when there are barriers to open-access publication (like few journals, fees, etc.). If those obstacles are lessened, most researchers aren't going to argue for closed-access: they generally WANT to disseminate their work as broadly as possible. And then why should a research funding group give a damn about the profits of publishers?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @04:10PM (2 children)
We go to scihub and enter that DOI number. Knowledge is limited only to those who lack curiosity.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 06 2019, @05:27PM (1 child)
What you're talking about is illegal knowledge. Stolen books can't make you smarter.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday January 06 2019, @06:20PM
THE KNAWLIDGE IS FORBIDDEN!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Sunday January 06 2019, @08:25PM
Policy making with no real concern for the pragmatic implementation or consideration of secondary effects .. evidence once again that our lawmakers are bad at their job. The money to publish the papers and the data has to come from somewhere, even if it's not for actual paper publications (servers, bandwidth, administration, skilled technical personnel). Access to the papers needs to happen. I guess I'll just continue to pirate what I want to read and hopefully the situation changes so far more people have ready access.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Sunday January 06 2019, @11:37PM
I was quite shocked when my employer told me he'd be paying three grand to publish the first paper on which I'm the third co-author, as I did the data analysis.
That entire paper established just one single data point in a more-useful graph, that point being the age of a certain globular cluster of stars.
Dr. Mould didn't regard it as a big deal as his grants always covered stuff like that.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]