Jump to content

Plan S: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
copy edits. this really shouldn't be in the lead, but the article is too much of a mess for me to move it to a better place
→Criticism from Open Access Publishers: cleanup. tortured writing, editorial commentary
Line 142: Line 142:


==Criticism from Open Access Publishers==
==Criticism from Open Access Publishers==
Paradoxically, with focussing on "transforming" the business model of the largest publishers and through "transformative deals" like [[Project DEAL]], Plan S is - as argued by the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association ([[OASPA]]), putting smaller and emerging fully [[open access]] publishers at a competitive disadvantage, and has the potential to severely harm the long tail of fully (gold) open access publishers. 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.
According to the 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.


As commented by [[OASPA]]:
OASPA commented:
<blockquote>[...] Discussions and solutions continue to be focussed on the largest, mixed-model publishers. While it is this segment of the market on which funders’ attention – and spend – is concentrated, the vast majority of publishers within the so-called ‘Long Tail’ (the majority of OASPA’s members) appear to be absent from the focus of Plan S. Many of these publishers are too small to negotiate the kind of ‘transformative’ national Big Deals we are seeing for the largest publishers, while exclusively open access publishers without legacy subscription businesses are also unable to participate. Many are not even of sufficient size to make agreements directly with institutions.
<blockquote>Discussions and solutions continue to be focussed on the largest, mixed-model publishers. While it is this segment of the market on which funders’ attention – and spend – is concentrated, the vast majority of publishers within the so-called ‘Long Tail’ (the majority of OASPA’s members) appear to be absent from the focus of Plan S. Many of these publishers are too small to negotiate the kind of ‘transformative’ national Big Deals we are seeing for the largest publishers, while exclusively open access publishers without legacy subscription businesses are also unable to participate. Many are not even of sufficient size to make agreements directly with institutions.


For a healthy, competitive market in the longer term, the needs of fully open access publishers must not be overlooked at this critical stage. Smaller publishers, learned societies and innovative new platforms will be at a significant disadvantage unless they are properly considered and steps are taken to ensure they are able to compete fairly in the market. Conducting discussions with smaller publishers, both fully OA and those with mixed models, and sharing the outcomes and ideas that arise could therefore be enormously helpful.<ref>{{cite web |title=OASPA Feedback on Plan S Implementation Guidance |url=https://oaspa.org/oaspa-feedback-on-plan-s-implementation-guidance/ |website=OASPA |publisher=OASPA}}</ref></blockquote>
For a healthy, competitive market in the longer term, the needs of fully open access publishers must not be overlooked at this critical stage. Smaller publishers, learned societies and innovative new platforms will be at a significant disadvantage unless they are properly considered and steps are taken to ensure they are able to compete fairly in the market. Conducting discussions with smaller publishers, both fully OA and those with mixed models, and sharing the outcomes and ideas that arise could therefore be enormously helpful.<ref>{{cite web |title=OASPA Feedback on Plan S Implementation Guidance |url=https://oaspa.org/oaspa-feedback-on-plan-s-implementation-guidance/ |website=OASPA |publisher=OASPA}}</ref></blockquote>

Revision as of 17:54, 14 November 2019

Not to be confused with S-Plan.

Plan S is an initiative for open-access science publishing that was launched by Science Europe on 4 September 2018.[1][2] It is an initiative of "cOAlition S",[3] a consortium launched by major 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]

Professor Johan Rooryck of Leiden University was appointed Open Access Champion by cOAlition S on 28 August 2019; he replaced Robert-Jan Smits, who stepped down in March 2019.[6]

Principles of the plan

The plan is 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, 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.

Members of the coalition

Organisations in the coalition behind Plan S include:[7]

International organizations that are member:

Plan S is also supported by:

Institutional statements of support

Specific implementation guidance

A task force of Science Europe, lead by John-Arne Røttingen (RCN) and David Sweeney (UKRI), has developed a specific implementation guidance on the Plan S principles, released on November 27, 2018.[50] 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.[51]

Transition period

During a transition period, publishing in a hybrid journal that is covered by a transformative agreement to become a full open-access venue will remain permissible.[52] The contracts of such transformative agreements need to be made publicly available (including costs), and may not last beyond 2023.[50]

Green open access

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.[52]

Licensing and rights

In order 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.[50]

Mandatory criteria for open access journals and platforms

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 a archiving programme such as LOCKSS/CLOCKSS.
  • Accessability 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, with one part being subscription based and 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

The implementation guidance was open for general feedback until 8 February 2019[53]. On May 31st 2019 the cOAlition S published an updated version of their implementation guidance in light of the feedback received during the consultation[54].

Reactions

The plan was met with opposition from a number of publishers of non-open access journals, as well as from researchers and learned societies. 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".[55] 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".[55][56] Tom Reller of Elsevier said, "if you think that information should be free of charge, go to Wikipedia".[57] Reactions to the Plan also include an Open Letter, currently signed by more than 1500 researchers, expressing their concerns about perceived unintended outcomes of the Plan if implemented as stated before the publication of the specific implementation guidance.[58] 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.[59][60]

Stephen Curry, a structural biologist and open access advocate at Imperial College London, called the policy a "significant shift" and "a very powerful declaration".[55] 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."[56] 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".[61] He said that, until Plan S is implemented, "The ethical choice is to read the stolen material published by Sci-Hub."[61]

On 7 September 2018 the European University Association (EUA) published a statement in which it generally welcomed the Plan's ambitions to turn open access into reality by 2020, but stated that, while the plan developed a bold vision for the transition, it hinged on turning principles into practice.[62]

On September 12, 2018 UBS repeated their "sell" advice on Elsevier (RELX) stocks.[63] Elsevier’s share price fell by 13% between Aug 28 and Sept 19, 2018.[64]

On September 24, 2018, the three large researcher organizations Eurodoc, Marie Curie Alumni Association and Young Academy of Europe released a "Joint Statement on Open Access for Researchers" announcing their support for Plan S.[65]

On October 25, 2018, the Digital Research Infrastructure for the Arts and Humanities (DARIAH) endorsed the main ambitions set out by the Plan S, namely the elimination of paywalls, copyright retention, and the rejection of hybrid models of open access publishing.[40] DARIAH published recommendations[66] for the practical implementation of the principles of the Plan S. DARIAH perceived a strong bias toward the STEM perspective within the current principles of Plan S, and called for a broader range of publication funding mechanisms to better cover the situation for researchers in the arts and humanities. DARIAH was established as a European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) in August 2014 and as of 1 January 2019 had 17 member countries and several cooperating partners in eight non-member countries.[67] Further detailed recommendations for the implementation of Plan S were published on 19 October 2018 by the board of the Fair Open Access Alliance (FOAA).[68]

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 [69], 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."

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.[70]

On 4 December 2018 a statement of support was signed by 113 institutions from 37 nations in 5 continents, affirming that there was a strong alignment among the approaches taken by OA2020, Plan S, the Jussieu Call for Open science and bibliodiversity, and others to facilitate a full transition to immediate open access.[43][44]

On 5 December 2018 it emerged that the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology would support Plan S and the goal of immediate open access for publicly funded projects.[45][71] In 2018 China had become the world's largest producer of scientific articles in terms of volume.[72]

Some commentators have suggested that the adoption of Plan S in one region would encourage its adoption in other regions.[73]

On 17 January 2019 UK's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) pledged support for Plan S and announced that the current open access policy will be reviewed.[48] The NIHR is the largest national clinical research funder in Europe with a budget of over £1 billion (approximately USD 1.3 billion).

On 12 February 2019 K. VijayRaghavan, the principal scientific adviser of the Government of India, announced that India is joining Plan S.[12] India is the third biggest producer of scientific papers in the world.[73] Earlier this year Jordan and Zambia signed up Plan S.[12]

On March 6 2019, the Swedish Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, an initial supporter of Plan S, wrote a letter withdrawing its support, noting that "Coalition S is a network of research funding organizations with a commitment to Open Science. Plan S is one attempt at achieving this goal, but for Riksbankens Jubileumsfond the currently chosen path is not realistic and sustainable" (see external links)[74]

On March 26 2019, the OA2020 Mainland China signatory libraries held a meeting at the National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing at which they clarified their position with regard to Plan S. [75]

Criticism from Open Access Publishers

According to the 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.

OASPA commented:

Discussions and solutions continue to be focussed on the largest, mixed-model publishers. While it is this segment of the market on which funders’ attention – and spend – is concentrated, the vast majority of publishers within the so-called ‘Long Tail’ (the majority of OASPA’s members) appear to be absent from the focus of Plan S. Many of these publishers are too small to negotiate the kind of ‘transformative’ national Big Deals we are seeing for the largest publishers, while exclusively open access publishers without legacy subscription businesses are also unable to participate. Many are not even of sufficient size to make agreements directly with institutions. For a healthy, competitive market in the longer term, the needs of fully open access publishers must not be overlooked at this critical stage. Smaller publishers, learned societies and innovative new platforms will be at a significant disadvantage unless they are properly considered and steps are taken to ensure they are able to compete fairly in the market. Conducting discussions with smaller publishers, both fully OA and those with mixed models, and sharing the outcomes and ideas that arise could therefore be enormously helpful.[76]

See also

References

  1. ^ "Coalition of European Funders Announces "Plan S" to Require Full OA, Cap APCs, & Disallow Publication in Hybrid Journals". SPARC. 4 September 2018.
  2. ^ "Plan S: Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications" (PDF). Science Europe. 4 September 2018. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  3. ^ a b "Science Europe – cOAlition S". www.scienceeurope.org. Retrieved 2018-09-15.
  4. ^ "European countries demand that publicly funded research should be free to all". The Economist. 15 September 2018. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  5. ^ Biemans, Claud (March 2019). "Hobbels op weg naar open wetenschap". Nederlands Tijschrift voor Natuurkunde (in Dutch). 'De S staat voor shock. (Robbert-Jan Smits, presentation at the Physics@Veldhoven conference, 22 January 2019).'
  6. ^ "cOAlition S Appoints Johan Rooryck as Open Access Champion". cOAlition S. Retrieved 2019-08-19.
  7. ^ a b "National Research Funding Organisations Participating in cOAlition S" (PDF). Science Europe. 2018-10-09. Retrieved 2018-10-10.
  8. ^ Else, Holly (28 September 2018). "Finland joins Europe's bold open-access push". Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-06895-z.
  9. ^ "Vinnova, Sweden's Innovation Agency, Joins cOAlition S". cOAlition S. 2019-05-22. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
  10. ^ Noorden (9 November 2018). "RJ ansluter sig till Plan S" (in Swedish). Retrieved 13 November 2018.
  11. ^ "Riksbankens Jubileumsfond | Riksbankens Jubileumsfond steps away from Plan S". www.rj.se. Retrieved 2019-06-06.
  12. ^ a b c d Craig Nicholson (12 February 2019). "India agrees to sign up to Plan S". researchresearch.com. Retrieved 12 February 2019.
  13. ^ Mohammad (2019-03-13). "The Higher Council for Science and Technology is the first organisation in the Middle East who joined cOAlition PLAN S". www.hcst.gov.jo. Retrieved 2019-03-25.
  14. ^ "The Higher Council for Science and Technology Joins cOAlition S | Plan S". www.coalition-s.org. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
  15. ^ a b Noorden, Richard Van (5 November 2018). "Wellcome and Gates join bold European open-access plan". doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07300-5. Retrieved 5 November 2018.
  16. ^ Moody, Glyn (6 November 2018). "Big Boost For Open Access As Wellcome And Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Back EU's 'Plan S'". Techdirt. Retrieved 8 November 2018.
  17. ^ "Aligning Science Against Parkinson's (ASAP) Joins cOAlition S | Plan S". www.coalition-s.org.
  18. ^ 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.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  19. ^ "'Plan S' and 'cOAlition S' – Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications - European Commission". European Commission. 2018-09-04. Retrieved 2018-09-15.
  20. ^ "ERC Scientific Council joins new effort to push for full open access". ERC: European Research Council. 2018-09-03. Retrieved 2018-09-15.
  21. ^ "WHO and TDR join coalition for free digital access to health research". WHO. Retrieved 29 August 2019.
  22. ^ "Stellungnahme der DFG zur Gründung von "cOAlition S" zur Unterstützung von Open Access". Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (in German). 4 September 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  23. ^ "Freier Zugang zu Publikationen: Der SNF unterstützt den europäischen Plan S". Swiss National Science Foundation (in German). 4 September 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  24. ^ ""The transfer to open access should take place as soon as it is possible"". Swedish Research Council. 4 September 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  25. ^ "Portugal and FCT'S position towards Plan S". Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). 2 October 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  26. ^ "LIBER Supports New Plan to Make Open Access A Reality By 2020". LIBER. 4 September 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  27. ^ "Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications: LERU's reaction to Plan S". LERU. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  28. ^ "Response to Science Europe's Open Access plan". EMBO. September 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  29. ^ "EU-LIFE reacts to Plan S: Support to Open Access and 10 key recommendations". EU-Life. 12 November 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  30. ^ "Internationale coalitie wil versnelling Open Access". ZoneMw (in Dutch). 4 September 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  31. ^ "Publications". eua.eu. Retrieved 2019-01-13.
  32. ^ a b "Joint Statement on Open Access for Researchers via Plan S" (PDF). Researchers Support Open Access via Plan S. September 2018. Retrieved 24 September 2018.
  33. ^ "New coalition of European funders join together to place unprecedented mandate on researchers to publish OA". 5 September 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  34. ^ "COAR's response to Plan S". 12 September 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  35. ^ "Building a Sustainable Knowledge Commons. COAR's response to the draft implementation requirements in Plan S". 13 December 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  36. ^ "The Fair Open Access Alliance (FOAA) on Plan S". 19 September 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  37. ^ "PRESS RELEASE: Researchers Support Open Access via Plan S | Eurodoc". eurodoc.net. Retrieved 2019-01-13.
  38. ^ "YERUN Position Statement on Plan". Young European Research Universities Network. 18 October 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  39. ^ "OASPA Offers Support on the Implementation of Plan S". 2 October 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  40. ^ a b "Towards a Plan(HS)S: DARIAH's position on PlanS". DARIAH-EU. 25 September 2018. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  41. ^ "Plan S: A European Open Access Mandate". 5 October 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  42. ^ "F1000 supports EC's plan for full and immediate open access (Plan S)". 4 September 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  43. ^ a b "Final Statement of the 14th Berlin Open Access Conference". 2018-12-04. Retrieved 2018-12-05.
  44. ^ a b "Expression of interest in the large-scale implementation of Open Access to scholarly journals". 2018-12-04. Retrieved 2018-12-05.
  45. ^ a b c d Roussi, Antoaneta (5 December 2018). "China backs Plan S". researchresearch.com. Retrieved 5 December 2018.
  46. ^ "Systemic reforms and further consultation needed to make Plan S a success". 12 December 2018. Retrieved 13 December 2018.
  47. ^ "Supporting Plan S, a model making research accessible & advancing science globally". Retrieved 12 January 2019.
  48. ^ a b "NIHR gives support to international Open Access initiative". 17 January 2019. Retrieved 17 January 2019.
  49. ^ "Joint statement by CAUL/AOASG on Plan S". CAUL. 2019-02-11. Retrieved 2019-06-04.
  50. ^ a b c "Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S" (PDF). cOAlition S. 27 November 2018. Retrieved 27 November 2018.
  51. ^ "cOAlition S Adopts Implementation Guidance on Plan S". cOAlition S. 22 November 2018. Retrieved 22 November 2018.
  52. ^ a b Else, Holly (27 November 2018). "Funders flesh out details of Europe's bold open-access plan". Nature. Retrieved 27 November 2018.
  53. ^ "Public Feedback on the Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S". cOAllition S. 27 November 2018. Retrieved 17 January 2019.
  54. ^ "cOAlition S Releases Revised Implementation Guidance on Plan S Following Public Feedback Exercise | Plan S". www.coalition-s.org. Retrieved 2019-06-04.
  55. ^ 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.
  56. ^ a b Yeager, Ashley (4 September 2018). "Open-Access Plan in Europe Bans Publishing in Paywalled Journals". The Scientist. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  57. ^ Keulemans, Maarten (4 September 2018). "11 EU-landen besluiten: vanaf 2020 moet alle wetenschappelijke literatuur gratis beschikbaar zijn". De Volkskrank (in Dutch). Retrieved 25 September 2018. 'Als je vindt dat informatie gratis moet zijn: ga naar Wikipedia.'
  58. ^ Open Letter from Undersigned Researchers. Reaction of Researchers to Plan S: Too Far, Too Risky. Retrieved 15 November 2018.
  59. ^ Open Letter in Support of Funder Open Publishing Mandates. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  60. ^ Van Noorden, Richard (4 December 2018). "Researchers sign petition backing plans to end paywalls". Nature. Retrieved 4 December 2018.
  61. ^ a b Monbiot, George (13 September 2018). "Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
  62. ^ "Open Access by 2020: EUA supports Plan S for an open scholarly system". European University Association. 7 September 2018. Retrieved 2018-11-16.
  63. ^ Elder, Bryce (12 September 2018). "Stocks to watch: SSE, BAT, Galápagos, RELX, Telefónica, RBS". Financial Times. Retrieved 14 October 2018.
  64. ^ 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.
  65. ^ O'Neill, Gareth; DiFranco, Matthew; Swart, Marcel (2018-09-24). "Joint Statement on Open Access for Researchers via Plan S" (Document). doi:10.5281/zenodo.1465451. {{cite document}}: Cite document requires |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |via= ignored (help)
  66. ^ "Towards a Plan(HS)S: DARIAH's position on PlanS. Recommendations" (PDF). DARIAH-EU. 25 September 2018. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  67. ^ "Members and Cooperating Partners". DARIAH-EU. Retrieved 1 January 2019.
  68. ^ "FOAA Board recommendations for the implementation of Plan S" (PDF). Fair Open Access Alliance (FOAA). 19 October 2018. Retrieved 28 October 2018.
  69. ^ Droegemeier, Kelvin (30 April 2019). "An Interview with OSTP Director Kelvin Droegemeier"" (in Dutch). American Institute of Physics. '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.'
  70. ^ Norman, Noah (2 December 2018). "Epidemiology & Infection goes open access". Epidemiology and Infection. doi:10.1017/S0950268818003047.
  71. ^ Schiermeier, Quirin (5 December 2018). "China backs bold plan to tear down journal paywalls". Nature. Retrieved 5 December 2018.
  72. ^ Tollefson, Jeff (18 January 2018). "China declared world's largest producer of scientific articles". Nature. Retrieved 7 December 2018.
  73. ^ a b Rabes, Tania (2 January 2019). "Will the world embrace Plan S, the radical proposal to mandate open access to science papers?". Science.
  74. ^ Riksbankens Jubileumsfond: "Riksbankens Jubileumsfond withdraws support for Plan S". 7 March 2019. Retrieved 10 March 2019.
  75. ^ "OA2020 Mainland China Signatory Libraries responded to Plan S Guidance on Implementation". 26 March 2019. Retrieved 15 April 2019.
  76. ^ "OASPA Feedback on Plan S Implementation Guidance". OASPA. OASPA.
Scholia has a topic profile for Plan S.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Plan_S&oldid=926174629"