Open Access Publishing: Plan S Update

I haven’t had time to go through the details yet, but yesterday saw the release of revised Principles and Implemenation for Plan S, which I have blogged about before, e.g. here. There’s also a rationale for the changes here.

For those of you who have never heard of Plan S, it For those that haven’t it is a proposal by funding agencies from 11 European Nations to give the public free access to publicly funded science. The 11 countries involved in this initiative are: France, Italy, Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, and the UK. Together, these nations compise `cOAlition S’ – the `OA’ is for `Open Access’ – to carry out the plan.

The principal change is that the deadline for implementation has been moved back a year, which is sensible as the original deadline of January 2020 was never going to be feasible. The principal principle is however unchanged:

With effect from 2021, all scholarly publications on the results from research funded by public or private grants provided by national, regional and international research councils and funding bodies, must be published in Open Access Journals, on Open Access Platforms, or made immediately available through Open Access Repositories without embargo.

I’ll go through the revised guidelines when I get time but in the meantime if you can are so minded you can read them yourself and comment thereon through the comments box below.


6 Responses to “Open Access Publishing: Plan S Update”

  1. Dark Energy Says:

    What is the difference with gold/green open access? We get to
    hear these terms now and then or may be I am confusing them something else. Some journals I think do provide open access
    but then author needs to pay extra to retains the copy right.
    In medical journals where the published results are more
    directly linked to business interests can the journals be sued
    for publishing misleading results, once the copy right is
    transferred? In physics/astronomy if universities make a rule
    that all accepted papers are resubmitted to arXiv then why
    we need open access? Libraries can simply discontinue the
    subscription and authors will be under pressure to use arXiv
    more meaningfully. Universities can help by not giving
    any weights to papers not on the arXiv when going through
    CVs in job application?

    • telescoper Says:

      Definitions of “Green” and “Gold” open access can easily be found on the web but in a nutshell:

      “self-archiving” of published material so that it is freely available to the public is “Green” open-access

      paying the publisher to make the article freely available to the public is “Gold” open-access.

      The problem with using the arxiv only is that the arxiv does not undertake peer review. The solution, which we have adopted in the Open Journal of Astrophysics, is to provide an overlay to the arXiv that undertakes peer-review (free of charge to the authors).

      • Dark Energy Says:

        Is peer review really needed?
        For experiments the data should be made publicly available
        and anyone can test it subsequently. Theoretical results
        can be debated more easily.

        Referees are not always correct. I am sure there are
        counter arguments but refereeing process also has many inherent issues. Many journals never publish the
        statistics about the ethnicity/gender/nationality
        of authors/referees which can be used to test
        presence/absence of subconscious bias.

        The editorial board of
        many “international” journals lack representation from
        minorities and women. These issues are being debated
        more openly in educational institutions, but less so
        for the constitution of editorial boards of many journals.
        Though everything including hiring process and
        promotion of academics is eventually decided by publication.

  2. “Is peer review really needed?”

    Of course. It is easy to see what gets published there is no peer review.

    Not one to cherry-pick, here is the first abstract in the cosmology section:

    all objects time dilate just as photons redshift as in my paper photons redshift0 now when all masses start slowing down they vibrate at lower frequencies and they end up seeing stuff slower even thoug they gone at a faster speed and they end up being like at rest and so they see the speed of light constant

  3. Is the Open Journal of Astrophysics Plan-S compliant?

    While I think that open access is a good idea, it seems that in the case of Plan S the main publishers have boondoggled the community into simply paying via different channels, without reducing the inflated costs.

  4. […] I’ll report more on new publications as they are published, but before that I thought I’d report on a couple of bits of news to do with Plan S, following the issuance last month of revised guidelines. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: