SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(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]