Jump to content

Plan S

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the sabotage campaign by Irish republicans, see S-Plan.

Plan S is an initiative for open-access science publishing launched in 2018[1][2] by "cOAlition S",[3] a consortium of national research agencies and funders from twelve European countries. The plan requires scientists and researchers who benefit from state-funded research organisations and institutions to publish their work in open repositories or in journals that are available to all by 2021.[4] The "S" stands for "shock".[5]

Per 2017 figures, the mandate of Plan S will cover about 6% of worldwide research articles, including about one third of articles in Nature and Science. Major publishers have been planning to accommodate this mandate by offering (or allowing) open access options to authors.[6]

Principles

[edit]

The plan, launched in 2018, was structured around ten principles.[3] The key principle states that by 2021, research funded by public or private grants must be published in open-access journals or platforms, or made immediately available in open access repositories without an embargo. The ten principles are:

  1. authors should retain copyright on their publications, which must be published under an open license such as Creative Commons;
  2. the members of the coalition should establish robust criteria and requirements for compliant open access journals and platforms;
  3. they should also provide incentives for the creation of compliant open access journals and platforms if they do not yet exist;
  4. publication fees should be covered by the funders or universities, not individual researchers;
  5. such publication fees should be standardized and capped;
  6. universities, research organizations, and libraries should align their policies and strategies;
  7. for books and monographs,[7] the timeline may be extended beyond 2021;
  8. open archives and repositories are acknowledged for their importance;
  9. hybrid open-access journals are not compliant with the key principle;
  10. members of the coalition should monitor and sanction non-compliance.

In October 2023, cOAlition S released a proposal that would "reimagine scientific publishing without any author fees" (diamond open access).[8][9]

Specific implementation guidance

[edit]
Diagram of Plan S requirements (January 2019)

A task force of Science Europe, led by John-Arne Røttingen (RCN) and David Sweeney (UKRI), has developed a specific implementation guidance on the Plan S principles, released on 27 November 2018.[10] The development of the implementation guidance also drew on input from interested parties such as research institutions, researchers, universities, funders, charities, publishers, and civil society.[11]

Transition period

[edit]

During a transition period, it will remain permissible to publish in so-called transformative journals, defined as hybrid journals that are covered by an agreement to become a full open-access venue.[12] The contracts of such transformative agreements need to be made publicly available (including costs), and may not last beyond 2023.[10]

Green open access

[edit]

Publishing in any journal will continue to be permissible subject to the condition that a copy of the manuscript accepted by the journal, or the final published article, will be deposited in an approved open-access repository (green open access) with no embargo on access and with a CC BY licence.[12] As part of the Rights retention strategy, Coalition S plans to override journal policies that would forbid this.[13][14] As of October 2021, this was done for over 500 works published in various venues.[15]

Licensing and rights

[edit]

To re-use scholarly content, proper attribution needs to be given to the authors, and publications need to be granted a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to share and adapt the work for any purpose, including commercially. Scholarly articles must be published under a Creative Commons Attribution license CC BY 4.0, or alternatively CC BY-SA 4.0 Share-alike or CC0 Public Domain.[10] In particular, this allows them to be used in Wikipedia.[15]

Mandatory criteria for open access journals and platforms

[edit]

Open access journals and platforms need to meet the following criteria to be compliant with Plan S:

  • All scholarly content must be immediately accessible upon publication without any delay and free to read and download, without any kind of technical or other form of obstacles.
  • Content needs to be published under CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0.
  • The journal/platform must implement and document a solid review system according to the standards within the discipline, and according to the standards of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
  • The journal/platform must be listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) or be in the state of being registered.
  • Automatic article processing charge waivers for authors from low-income countries and discounts for authors from middle-income countries must be provided.
  • Details about publishing costs (including direct costs, indirect costs and potential surplus) impacting the publication fees must be made transparent and be openly available on the journal website/publishing platform.
  • DOIs must be used as permanent identifiers.
  • Long-term digital preservation strategy by deposition of content in an archiving programme such as LOCKSS/CLOCKSS.
  • Accessibility of the full text in a machine readable format (e.g. XML / JATS) to foster Text and Data Mining (TDM).
  • Link to raw data and code in external repositories.
  • Provide high quality and machine readable article level metadata and cited references under a CC0 public domain dedication.
  • Embed machine readable information on the open access status and the license of the article.

Mirror journals, where one part is subscription based, with the other part being open access, are considered to be de facto hybrid journals. Mirror journals are not compliant with Plan S unless they are a part of a transformative agreement.

Public feedback

[edit]

The implementation guidance was open for general feedback until 8 February 2019.[16] On 31 May 2019 the cOAlition S published an updated version of their implementation guidance in light of the feedback received during the consultation.[17]

COAlition S

[edit]

Some commentators have suggested that the adoption of Plan S in one region would encourage its adoption in other regions.[18]

Member organisations

[edit]

As of October 2018, organisations in the coalition behind Plan S included:[19]

International organizations that are members:

Plan S is also supported by:

Public figures

[edit]

Robert-Jan Smits stepped down in March 2019[42] and later wrote a book about Plan S.[43] Johan Rooryck of Leiden University was appointed Open Access Champion by cOAlition S on 28 August 2019;[44]

Organisations that withdrew or declined to join

[edit]

In October 2018 the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) made it clear that US federal funders would not be signing up to Plan S. In an interview with the American Institute of Physics published 30 April 2019, OSTP Director Kelvin Droegemeier stated with regard to Plan S: "One of the things this government will not do is to tell researchers where they have to publish their papers. That is absolutely up to the scholar who's doing the publication. There's just no question about that."[45]

In 2018 Swedish Riksbank's Jubilee Fond (RJ) used to be a member,[46] but left the coalition in 2019 after concerns about the timelines of Plan S.[47]

On 25 October 2019, Vijay Raghavan announced that India would not be joining cOAlition S,[48] despite his supportive comments earlier in the same year.[27]

The European Research Council initially supported Coalition S in 2018,[49] but withdrew support in July 2020.[50]

Reactions

[edit]
See also: Article processing charge § Criticism

Institutional reactions

[edit]

The following institutional statements of support were issued:

Reactions by researchers

[edit]

Reactions included an Open Letter, signed by more than 1790 researchers, expressing their concerns about perceived unintended outcomes of the Plan if implemented as stated before the publication of the specific implementation guidance.[84] Another Open Letter in support of mandatory open access was issued after the publication of the specific implementation guide, and had been signed by over 1,900 researchers by the end of 2018. However, it did not reference Plan S specifically.[85][86]

Stephen Curry, a structural biologist and open access advocate at Imperial College London, called the policy a "significant shift" and "a very powerful declaration".[87] Ralf Schimmer, head of the Scientific Information Provision at the Max Planck Digital Library, told The Scientist that "This will put increased pressure on publishers and on the consciousness of individual researchers that an ecosystem change is possible ... There has been enough nice language and waiting and hoping and saying please. Research communities just aren't willing to tolerate procrastination anymore."[88] Political activist George Monbiot – while acknowledging that the plan was "not perfect" – wrote in The Guardian that the publishers' responses to Plan S was "ballistic", and argued that Elsevier's response regarding Wikipedia "inadvertently remind[ed] us of what happened to the commercial encyclopedias".[89] He said that, until Plan S is implemented, "The ethical choice is to read the stolen material published by Sci-Hub."[89] Herpetologist Malcolm L. McCallum suggested that science requires a diversity of publishing types to serve the needs of the entire scientific community.[90]

Individual Plan S policies have also received a mixed reception from academics. For example, the Rights Retention Strategy has been enthusiastically promoted by Cambridge neuroscientist Stephen Eglen because it can be used by anyone to make their work open access.[91] In contrast, computational biochemist Lynn Kamerlin criticized the Rights Retention Strategy because, while it would create obligations for grantees it was unclear whether it would create legal obligations for publishers.[92] Similarly, Shaun Khoo has argued that the Rights Retention Strategy is a complex approach that creates an unrealistic burden for authors and may produce legal risk for authors, institutions and readers.[93]

Reactions by journals and publishers

[edit]

The plan was initially met with opposition from a number of publishers of non-open access journals, as well as from learned societies.[94] Springer Nature "urge[d] research funding agencies to align rather than act in small groups in ways that are incompatible with each other, and for policymakers to also take this global view into account", adding that removing publishing options from researchers "fails to take this into account and potentially undermines the whole research publishing system".[87] The AAAS, publisher of the journal Science, argued that Plan S "will not support high-quality peer-review, research publication and dissemination", and that its implementation "would disrupt scholarly communications, be a disservice to researchers, and impinge academic freedom" and "would also be unsustainable for the Science family of journals".[87][88] Tom Reller of Elsevier said, "if you think that information should be free of charge, go to Wikipedia".[95]

On 12 September 2018 UBS repeated their "sell" advice on Elsevier (RELX) stocks.[96] Elsevier's share price fell by 13% between 28 Aug and 19 September 2018.[97]

According to the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), whose aim is to transform the business model of the largest publishers (by supporting projects like Project DEAL), Plan S puts smaller and emerging fully open access publishers at a competitive disadvantage, and potentially harms their prospects. Pure "gold" open access publishers may be put out of business by incentivizing authors to publish with large publishers which have the market power to negotiate their transition plans with funders, while no incentives are provided to authors to publish with smaller fully open access publishers and scholarly societies.[98]

Policy changes by journals and publishers

[edit]

On 28 November 2018 the journal Epidemiology and Infection published by Cambridge University Press announced that it would convert to the open access model of publication from 1 January 2019, citing changed funder policies and Plan S.[99]

On 8 April 2020, Springer Nature announced that many of its journals, including Nature, would become compatible with Plan S by publishing open access articles from 2021 and committing to an eventual transition to full open access.[100][101]

On 15 January 2021, the AAAS, which publishes Science, announced a trial OA policy that accommodates Plan S's green open access rules.[102] This policy allows the distribution of an article's accepted version under a free license, without embargo and without charge. However, this is only permitted to authors who are under mandates by their Coalition S funders.

In February 2021, more than 50 publishers, including Elsevier, Wiley and Springer Nature, announced their opposition to the rights retention strategy of Coalition S. More specifically, Springer Nature announced their intention to override that strategy by making authors sign a license to that effect.[103][104]

Policy changes by member organizations

[edit]

In 2024, the Gates Foundation announced a "preprint-centric" open access policy, and their intention to stop paying article-processing charges. This policy is not “entirely in line with cOAlition S”, because it does not mandate that an accepted manuscript be openly accessible.[105]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "Coalition of European Funders Announces 'Plan S' to Require Full OA, Cap APCs, & Disallow Publication in Hybrid Journals". SPARC. 4 September 2018. Archived from the original on 16 January 2019. Retrieved 16 January 2019.
  2. ^ "Plan S: Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications" (PDF). Science Europe. 4 September 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 September 2018. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  3. ^ a b "Science Europe – cOAlition S". scienceeurope.org. Archived from the original on 5 October 2018. Retrieved 15 September 2018.
  4. ^ "European countries demand that publicly funded research should be free to all". The Economist. 15 September 2018. Archived from the original on 2 October 2021. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  5. ^ Biemans, Claud (March 2019). "Hobbels op weg naar open wetenschap". Nederlands Tijschrift voor Natuurkunde (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 25 February 2019. Retrieved 25 February 2019. De S staat voor shock. (Robbert-Jan Smits, presentation at the Physics@Veldhoven conference, 22 January 2019).
  6. ^ Brainard, Jeffrey (1 January 2021). "A new mandate highlights costs, benefits of making all scientific articles free to read". Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). doi:10.1126/science.abg3557. ISSN 0036-8075. S2CID 234138307.
  7. ^ "cOAlition S statement on Open Access for academic books". Plan S. 2 September 2021. Retrieved 17 November 2021.
  8. ^ Sanderson, Katharine (14 November 2023). "Who should pay for open-access publishing? APC alternatives emerge". Nature. 623 (7987). Nature Publishing Group: 472–473. Bibcode:2023Natur.623..472S. doi:10.1038/d41586-023-03506-4. PMID 37964063. S2CID 265152169. Retrieved 23 November 2023.
  9. ^ "Towards Responsible Publishing". 'Plan S' and 'cOAlition S' – Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications. Retrieved 23 November 2023.
  10. ^ a b c "Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S" (PDF). cOAlition S. 27 November 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 February 2020. Retrieved 27 November 2018.
  11. ^ "cOAlition S Adopts Implementation Guidance on Plan S". cOAlition S. 22 November 2018. Archived from the original on 21 November 2020. Retrieved 22 November 2018.
  12. ^ a b Else, Holly (27 November 2018). "Funders flesh out details of Europe's bold open-access plan". Nature. Archived from the original on 5 November 2020. Retrieved 27 November 2018.
  13. ^ Van Noorden, Richard (16 July 2020). "Open-access Plan S to allow publishing in any journal". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02134-6. PMID 32678332. S2CID 220610171. Archived from the original on 16 July 2020. Retrieved 24 July 2020.
  14. ^ ARL Welcomes cOAlitionS Retention Strategy Calling for Open Access to Results of Funded Research, US: Association of Research Libraries, 15 July 2020, archived from the original on 26 October 2020, retrieved 15 July 2020
  15. ^ a b Mounce, Ross (5 October 2021). "Observing the success so far of the Rights Retention Strategy". Plan S. Retrieved 17 November 2021.
  16. ^ "Public Feedback on the Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S". cOAlition S. 27 November 2018. Archived from the original on 8 December 2018. Retrieved 17 January 2019.
  17. ^ "cOAlition S Releases Revised Implementation Guidance on Plan S Following Public Feedback Exercise | Plan S". www.coalition-s.org. Archived from the original on 30 May 2019. Retrieved 4 June 2019.
  18. ^ Rabes, Tania (2 January 2019). "Will the world embrace Plan S, the radical proposal to mandate open access to science papers?". Science. Archived from the original on 3 January 2019. Retrieved 7 January 2019.
  19. ^ a b "National Research Funding Organisations Participating in cOAlition S" (PDF). Science Europe. 9 October 2018. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 May 2019. Retrieved 10 October 2018.
  20. ^ "NHMRC's revised Open Access Policy released". 19 September 2022.
  21. ^ Else, Holly (28 September 2018). "Finland joins Europe's bold open-access push". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-06895-z. S2CID 158296679.
  22. ^ "The Fonds de recherche du Québec support open science by joining cOAlition S". frq.gouv.qc.ca. June 2021. Archived from the original on 1 June 2021. Retrieved 2 June 2021.
  23. ^ "Portugal's national funding agency for science, research and technology joins cOAlition S". www.coalition-s.org. Archived from the original on 26 January 2021. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
  24. ^ "SAMRC - making open access to research publications a reality". www.samrc.ac.za. Archived from the original on 31 January 2021. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
  25. ^ "Vinnova, Sweden's Innovation Agency, Joins cOAlition S". cOAlition S. 22 May 2019. Archived from the original on 7 November 2020. Retrieved 27 May 2019.
  26. ^ "SNSF joins cOAlition S – immediate Open Access to scientific articles". 1 June 2022.
  27. ^ a b Craig Nicholson (12 February 2019). "India agrees to sign up to Plan S". researchresearch.com. Archived from the original on 8 November 2020. Retrieved 12 February 2019.
  28. ^ Mohammad (13 March 2019). "The Higher Council for Science and Technology is the first organisation in the Middle East who joined cOAlition PLAN S". hcst.gov.jo. Archived from the original on 25 March 2019. Retrieved 25 March 2019.
  29. ^ "The Higher Council for Science and Technology Joins cOAlition S | Plan S". www.coalition-s.org. Archived from the original on 26 March 2019. Retrieved 26 March 2019.
  30. ^ a b Noorden, Richard Van (5 November 2018). "Wellcome and Gates join bold European open-access plan". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07300-5. Archived from the original on 16 November 2020. Retrieved 5 November 2018.
  31. ^ Moody, Glyn (6 November 2018). "Big Boost For Open Access As Wellcome And Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Back EU's 'Plan S'". Techdirt. Archived from the original on 8 November 2018. Retrieved 8 November 2018.
  32. ^ Brainard, Jeffrey (1 October 2020). "HHMI, one of the largest research philanthropies, will require immediate open access to papers". Science. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). doi:10.1126/science.abf0595. ISSN 0036-8075. S2CID 224876749.
  33. ^ Else, Holly (1 October 2020). "Powerful US research funder unveils strict open-access policy". Nature. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02793-5. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 33005051. S2CID 222159534.
  34. ^ "The Howard Hughes Medical Institute joins cOAlition S - Plan S". 'Plan S' and 'cOAlition S' – Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications. 1 October 2020. Archived from the original on 2 October 2020. Retrieved 5 October 2020.
  35. ^ "HHMI Announces Open Access Publishing Policy". HHMI.org. Archived from the original on 3 October 2020. Retrieved 5 October 2020.
  36. ^ "The Templeton World Charity Foundation joins cOAlition S | Plan S". www.coalition-s.org. Archived from the original on 27 November 2020. Retrieved 11 March 2021.
  37. ^ "Plan S". cOAlition S Welcomes its First African Member and Receives Strong Support from the African Academy of Sciences. Archived from the original on 20 February 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
  38. ^ "Aligning Science Against Parkinson's (ASAP) Joins cOAlition S | Plan S". www.coalition-s.org. Archived from the original on 26 September 2019. Retrieved 26 September 2019.
  39. ^ Schekman, Randy; Riley, Ekemini AU (25 September 2019). "Coordinating a new approach to basic research into Parkinson's disease". eLife. 8. doi:10.7554/eLife.51167. PMC 6760967. PMID 31551111.
  40. ^ "'Plan S' and 'cOAlition S' – Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications – European Commission". European Commission. 4 September 2018. Archived from the original on 4 September 2018. Retrieved 15 September 2018.
  41. ^ "WHO and TDR join coalition for free digital access to health research". WHO. Archived from the original on 14 January 2020. Retrieved 29 August 2019.
  42. ^ "Departure of Special Envoy for Open Access and Plan S Architect, Robert-Jan Smits". Plan S. 7 February 2019. Archived from the original on 4 March 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
  43. ^ Smits, Robert-Jan; Pells, Rachael (27 January 2022). Plan S for Shock: Science. Shock. Solution. Speed. Ubiquity Press. doi:10.5334/bcq. ISBN 978-1-914481-16-1. S2CID 246369795.
  44. ^ "cOAlition S Appoints Johan Rooryck as Open Access Champion". Plan S. Archived from the original on 28 August 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
  45. ^ Droegemeier, Kelvin (30 April 2019). "An Interview with OSTP Director Kelvin Droegemeier" (in Dutch). American Institute of Physics. Archived from the original on 12 October 2020. Retrieved 2 May 2019. 'One of the things this government will not do is to tell researchers where they have to publish their papers. That is absolutely up to the scholar who's doing the publication. There's just no question about that.'
  46. ^ Noorden (9 November 2018). "RJ ansluter sig till Plan S" (in Swedish). Archived from the original on 6 August 2020. Retrieved 13 November 2018.
  47. ^ "Riksbankens Jubileumsfond steps away from Plan S". www.rj.se. Archived from the original on 6 June 2019. Retrieved 6 June 2019.
  48. ^ "India Will Skip Plan S, Focus on National Efforts in Science Publishing". 26 October 2019. Archived from the original on 27 October 2019. Retrieved 20 November 2019.
  49. ^ "ERC Scientific Council joins new effort to push for full open access". ERC: European Research Council. 3 September 2018. Archived from the original on 23 December 2020. Retrieved 15 September 2018.
  50. ^ "ERC Scientific Council calls for open access plans to respect researchers' needs". ERC: European Research Council. 20 July 2020. Archived from the original on 20 July 2020. Retrieved 24 July 2020.
  51. ^ "Supporting Plan S, a model making research accessible & advancing science globally". Retrieved 17 October 2021.
  52. ^ "Systemic reforms and further consultation needed to make Plan S a success". 12 December 2018. Archived from the original on 15 December 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  53. ^ a b c d Roussi, Antoaneta (5 December 2018). "China backs Plan S". researchresearch.com. Archived from the original on 2 October 2021. Retrieved 5 December 2018.
  54. ^ Schiermeier, Quirin (5 December 2018). "China backs bold plan to tear down journal paywalls". Nature. Archived from the original on 6 December 2018. Retrieved 5 December 2018.
  55. ^ "COAR's response to Plan S". 12 September 2018. Archived from the original on 26 November 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  56. ^ "Building a Sustainable Knowledge Commons. COAR's response to the draft implementation requirements in Plan S". 13 December 2018. Archived from the original on 15 December 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  57. ^ "Joint statement by CAUL/AOASG on Plan S". CAUL. 11 February 2019. Archived from the original on 4 June 2019. Retrieved 4 June 2019.
  58. ^ a b "Towards a Plan(HS)S: DARIAH's position on PlanS". DARIAH-EU. 25 September 2018. Archived from the original on 27 October 2018. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  59. ^ "Stellungnahme der DFG zur Gründung von "cOAlition S" zur Unterstützung von Open Access". Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (in German). 4 September 2018. Archived from the original on 26 November 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  60. ^ "EULIFE reacts to Plan S: Support to Open Access and 10 key recommendations". EU-Life. 12 November 2018. Archived from the original on 26 November 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  61. ^ a b c "Joint Statement on Open Access for Researchers via Plan S" (PDF). Researchers Support Open Access via Plan S. September 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 January 2019. Retrieved 24 September 2018.
  62. ^ "Response to Science Europe's Open Access plan". EMBO. September 2018. Archived from the original on 7 January 2019. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  63. ^ "Publications". eua.eu. Archived from the original on 8 December 2018. Retrieved 13 January 2019.
  64. ^ "F1000 supports EC's plan for full and immediate open access (Plan S)". 4 September 2018. Archived from the original on 26 November 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  65. ^ "The Fair Open Access Alliance (FOAA) on Plan S". 19 September 2018. Archived from the original on 26 November 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  66. ^ "FOAA Board recommendations for the implementation of Plan S" (PDF). Fair Open Access Alliance (FOAA). 19 October 2018. Archived from the original on 19 October 2018. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  67. ^ "Portugal and FCT'S position towards Plan S". Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). 2 October 2018. Archived from the original on 26 November 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  68. ^ "Final Statement of the 14th Berlin Open Access Conference". 4 December 2018. Archived from the original on 7 December 2018. Retrieved 5 December 2018.
  69. ^ "Expression of interest in the large-scale implementation of Open Access to scholarly journals". 4 December 2018. Archived from the original on 7 December 2018. Retrieved 5 December 2018.
  70. ^ "Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications: LERU's reaction to Plan S". LERU. Archived from the original on 27 February 2020. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  71. ^ "LIBER Supports New Plan to Make Open Access A Reality By 2020". LIBER. 4 September 2018. Archived from the original on 1 November 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  72. ^ "NIHR gives support to international Open Access initiative". 17 January 2019. Archived from the original on 19 January 2019. Retrieved 17 January 2019.
  73. ^ "Internationale coalitie wil versnelling Open Access". ZoneMw (in Dutch). 4 September 2018. Archived from the original on 9 September 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  74. ^ "OASPA Offers Support on the Implementation of Plan S". 2 October 2018. Archived from the original on 2 October 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  75. ^ "Plan S: A European Open Access Mandate". 5 October 2018. Archived from the original on 26 November 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  76. ^ "New coalition of European funders join together to place unprecedented mandate on researchers to publish OA". 5 September 2018. Archived from the original on 26 November 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  77. ^ "The transfer to open access should take place as soon as it is possible". Swedish Research Council. 4 September 2018. Archived from the original on 26 November 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  78. ^ "PRESS RELEASE: Researchers Support Open Access via Plan S | Eurodoc". eurodoc.net. Archived from the original on 24 September 2018. Retrieved 13 January 2019.
  79. ^ "YERUN Position Statement on Plan". Young European Research Universities Network. 18 October 2018. Archived from the original on 20 October 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  80. ^ "Towards a Plan(HS)S: DARIAH's position on PlanS. Recommendations" (PDF). DARIAH-EU. 25 September 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 October 2018. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  81. ^ "Members and Cooperating Partners". DARIAH-EU. Archived from the original on 12 June 2018. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  82. ^ "Open Access by 2020: EUA supports Plan S for an open scholarly system". European University Association. 7 September 2018. Archived from the original on 16 November 2018. Retrieved 16 November 2018.
  83. ^ "OA2020 Mainland China Signatory Libraries responded to Plan S Guidance on Implementation". 26 March 2019. Archived from the original on 27 February 2020. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
  84. ^ Open Letter from Undersigned Researchers. Reaction of Researchers to Plan S: Too Far, Too Risky Archived 8 November 2018 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 15 November 2018.
  85. ^ Open Letter in Support of Funder Open Publishing Mandates Archived 5 March 2019 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  86. ^ Van Noorden, Richard (4 December 2018). "Researchers sign petition backing plans to end paywalls". Nature. Archived from the original on 7 December 2018. Retrieved 4 December 2018.
  87. ^ a b c Else, Holly (September 2018). "Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions". Nature. 561 (7721): 17–18. Bibcode:2018Natur.561...17E. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-06178-7. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 30181639.
  88. ^ a b Yeager, Ashley (4 September 2018). "Open-Access Plan in Europe Bans Publishing in Paywalled Journals". The Scientist. Archived from the original on 15 September 2018. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  89. ^ a b Monbiot, George (13 September 2018). "Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 13 September 2018. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  90. ^ McCallum, M.L. (2019). "RE: Scientific societies worry about threat from Plan S". Science. 372 (3): 332–333. Bibcode:2019Sci...363..332B. doi:10.1126/science.363.6425.332. PMID 30679353. S2CID 59251411.
  91. ^ Eglen, Stephen J (27 March 2021). "Primer on the Rights Retention Strategy". doi:10.5281/zenodo.4641799. S2CID 244968062.
  92. ^ Kamerlin, Shina Caroline Lynn (5 October 2020). "Open Access, Plan S, and researchers' needs". EMBO Reports. 21 (10): e51568. doi:10.15252/embr.202051568. ISSN 1469-221X. PMC 7534613. PMID 32896098.
  93. ^ Khoo, Shaun Yon-Seng (6 October 2021). "The Plan S Rights Retention Strategy is an administrative and legal burden, not a sustainable open access solution". Insights. 34 (1): 22. doi:10.1629/uksg.556. hdl:1866/25762. ISSN 2048-7754. S2CID 241975805.
  94. ^ Vuong, Q.-H. (2020). "Plan S, self-publishing, and addressing unreasonable risks of society publishing". Learned Publishing. 33 (1): 64–68. doi:10.1002/leap.1274.
  95. ^ Keulemans, Maarten (4 September 2018). "11 EU-landen besluiten: vanaf 2020 moet alle wetenschappelijke literatuur gratis beschikbaar zijn". De Volkskrank (in Dutch). Archived from the original on 7 September 2018. Retrieved 25 September 2018. Als je vindt dat informatie gratis moet zijn: ga naar Wikipedia.
  96. ^ Elder, Bryce (12 September 2018). "Stocks to watch: SSE, BAT, Galápagos, RELX, Telefónica, RBS". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 14 October 2018. Retrieved 14 October 2018.
  97. ^ Smith, Richard (6–12 October 2018). "Film. The business of academic publishing: "a catastrophe"". The Lancet. 392 (10152): 1186–1187. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32353-5. PMID 30712703. S2CID 54405007.
  98. ^ "OASPA Feedback on Plan S Implementation Guidance". OASPA. 8 February 2019. Archived from the original on 26 October 2019. Retrieved 26 October 2019.
  99. ^ Norman, Noah (2 December 2018). "Epidemiology & Infection goes open access". Epidemiology and Infection. Vol. 147. doi:10.1017/S0950268818003047.
  100. ^ Van Noorden, Richard (9 April 2020). "Nature to join open-access Plan S, publisher says". Nature. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-01066-5. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 32273623. S2CID 215725652.
  101. ^ Else, Holly (24 November 2020). "Nature journals reveal terms of landmark open-access option". Nature. 588 (7836): 19–20. Bibcode:2020Natur.588...19E. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03324-y. PMID 33235382. S2CID 227166081. Archived from the original on 24 November 2020. Retrieved 24 November 2020.
  102. ^ Van Noorden, Richard (15 January 2021). "Science family of journals announces change to open-access policy". Nature. 589 (7843). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 505. Bibcode:2021Natur.589..505V. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00103-1. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 33452512.
  103. ^ Else, Holly (8 April 2021). "A guide to Plan S: the open-access initiative shaking up science publishing". Nature. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-00883-6. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 33833458. S2CID 233191526.
  104. ^ "Continuing the open access transition in 2021 and beyond - Advancing Discovery". Springer Nature. 8 April 2021. Archived from the original on 9 April 2021. Retrieved 9 April 2021.
  105. ^ Lenharo, Mariana (4 April 2024). "Will the Gates Foundation's preprint-centric policy help open access?". Nature. Nature Publishing Group. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-00996-8. PMID 38575826. Retrieved 6 April 2024.

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Scholia has a topic profile for Plan S.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Plan_S&oldid=1259490981"