More Unexpected Consequences: How the Plan S Transformative Journal Route Favors Larger Incumbent Publishers – The Scholarly Kitchen

“But once you read the Transformative Journal reporting requirements, you will realize that this route is likely impossible for journals other than those from larger and wealthier publishers. Once again, a well-intentioned policy has created further inequities in scholarly communication….

Transformative Journals (TJs) are one route offered by cOAlition S “to encourage publishers to transition to immediate Open Access.” Through this route, a subscription/hybrid journal can remain compliant and eligible for Plan S authors by committing to a transition to becoming fully-OA and meeting a set of OA growth requirements each year until 2024, when support for TJs ends and they are expected to fully convert over to OA. Let’s ignore for now the OA growth requirements for TJs – DeltaThink’s recent analysis covers this well and shows how unrealistic the numbers are and how few journals are likely to progress adequately given the timelines involved…

Instead, I want to focus on the reporting requirements for TJs. Tallying up the number of OA articles published each year is easy to accomplish. The transparent pricing reporting requirements remain vague and meaningless enough that they shouldn’t prove too onerous for even smaller publishers to put together. Where things get difficult, if not impossible, is in the requirement for an annual public report to cOAlition S, a report that must include data on downloads, citations, and Altmetric scores for all papers published, and that must be sub-divided into OA papers versus non-OA papers.

For those working at larger publishing houses, this likely sounds trivial. You’d just assign your team of in-house bibliometric analysts to pull citation data from your expensive Web of Science, Scopus, or Dimensions subscription. Download information can be obtained from the usage tracking service you pay for, or perhaps it’s included from the full-service publishing platform that your organization owns or that you employ each year at significant cost. Altmetric numbers can come from your access to the paid service of the same name. Your employee bibliometricians will, of course, spend the necessary time parsing out the OA articles from everything else.

Hopefully the theme running through that last paragraph was fairly obvious – none of this is free, much of it is very expensive, and in-house bibliometric expertise is rare among smaller publishers….”

Google Scholar – Public Access Tracker, Open Access, and eScholarship – Library Matters

“A few months ago, Google Scholar launched a Public Access Tracker. This is a tool embedded in Google Scholar profiles that shows if a researcher’s work is compliant with their funding agencies’ open access mandates: …

A few things to note:

Not every source is picked up

i.e. Researchers may have made works open but Google Scholar didn’t find it.

Not all funded research is captured
Uploading a PDF to your Google Drive (as Google recommends) would NOT meet open access requirements of funding agencies.
Some of the sources Google Scholar recognizes as ‘open’ are not in fact (e.g. ResearchGate). 

 

Although the tracker is not without its bugs (see above), it has spurred some researchers to make more of their work open access….”

Open Access Mandates in Universities: Challenges and Opportunities

“An Open Access mandate refers to a policy adopted by a funder, institution or the government which necessitates researchers to make their research articles public. This can be done via two routes: Green OA or Gold OA. The former refers to the researcher depositing her research article to an open access repository, generally institutional. The latter refers to submission of research to open access journals?—?some of which may levy Article Processing Charges (APCs) that can be paid by the researcher, his institution or from the research grant.

Universities that have adopted OA mandates include Harvard University (the first to do so), MIT, ETH Zurich, University of Liege and University College London. Harvard University has also developed a model policy language document for institutions looking to implement an open access policy for their faculty….”

Bilan du Plan national pour la science ouverte : des engagements tenus, des avancées majeures réalisées en 3 ans – Ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur, de la Recherche et de l’Innovation

“On July 4, 2018, Frédérique Vidal, Minister of Higher Education, Research and Innovation, launched the National Plan for Open Science on the occasion of the LIBER days, which bring together more than 400 European university libraries, in the University of Lille.

The report on the implementation of the plan published today traces the many actions carried out during these three years and is a powerful testimony to the respect of the commitments made .

The National Open Science Fund was created , it launched two calls for projects in favor of open scientific publication and it supported structuring international initiatives.  
Substantial resources have been deployed to strengthen and perpetuate the national open archive HAL, both technically and for its governance and economic model.  
The National Research Agency and other funding agencies now require open access to publications and the drafting of data management plans for the projects they fund.  
The function of ministerial research data administrator has been created and a network is being deployed in the establishments. It is about having a strategic vision on the management and openness of research data.  
Several guides and recommendations for putting open science into practice in everyday research have been published.  
About twenty universities and research organizations have adopted an open science policy.  
France has taken its full place at European and international level to promote its vision of open science  : – the National Open Science Fund has supported structuring international initiatives, such as Software Heritage, the world archive of software, or Research Data Alliance, – it plays its full part in the structuring of the European Open Science Cloud (EOSC) and participates in its governance….”

Webinar: Navigating the complexities of Open Access Management – Accucoms

“While open-access publishing continues to grow in popularity, the industry struggles to keep up with the challenges it creates. The lack of transparency and increasing complexity for authors have been shaping the space for too long. The new norm demands new and unified standards for collaboration between all stakeholders. In many cases, the burden of open-access publishing is on the author: paying publication fees, ensuring everything is compliant with their funder’s and institution’s policies, and manually reporting data back in all directions. 

Through a collaborative approach, ChronosHub ensures a complete service for all aspects of Open Access. This includes an effective management of publishing fees, OA agreements, funder policy compliance, repository deposits, and reporting. ChronosHub also supports authors in selecting suitable journals for their manuscript submissions by making funding policies and publisher agreements transparent….”

AAAS Plan S Compliance Policy: Staying Committed to Subscriptions – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Back in January, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) announced a pilot to allow authors funded by cOAlition S organizations that have adopted the Plan S Rights Retention Strategy to place a CC BY or a CC BY-ND license on their accepted manuscripts and to share them without embargo. 

Specifically, the AAAS License to Publish states that 

“AAAS licenses back the following rights to the Author in the version of the cOAlition S Funded Work that has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication, (the “Accepted Version”) but not the final, copyedited and proofed version published by AAAS (the “Final Published Version”): The right to self-archive and distribute the Accepted Version under either a CC BY 4.0 license or a CC BY-ND license, including on the Author’s personal website, in the Author’s company/institutional repository or archive, and in not for profit subject-based repositories such as PubMed Central, without embargo but only following publication of the Final Published Version.” …

The announcement of the pilot policy was widely reported on and was welcomed by cOAlition S in a special statement. Since that time, representatives of cOAlition S have repeatedly praised the AAAS policy in webinars and the like. This celebratory response has been a bit puzzling to me. Plan S aims to flip the publishing system to gold open access, with its various leaders often decrying the lack of progress in the two decades since the Budapest Open Access Initiative statement. Specifically, Plan S states that, “the subscription-based model of scientific publishing, including its so-called ‘hybrid’ variants, should therefore be terminated.” 

Yet in this case, cOAlition S is praising a publisher that is holding fast to the subscription-based model of closed publishing. And doing so even though this AAAS pilot policy is not a comprehensive route to compliance for Plan S since not all funders in the coalition have adopted the Rights Retention Strategy. Elsewhere I’ve observed that, over time, the implementation of Plan S has been marked by policies that “rehabilitate” journals into compliance. Is this another case of rehabilitation? …”

 

 

Page charges and OA policies | Trading Knowledge

“Much of my time in the past 12 months has been committed to preparing for compliance with the Coalition S / Wellcome open access policies. Because we have core funding from Wellcome this means that all research papers submitted on or after 1 Jan 2021 must comply with their new OA policy.

So I have been buried in transformative deals, transformative journals and the Rights Retention Strategy, trying to ensure that these will work to make our research papers open and compliant with Plan S.

This work continues. The new policy only affects papers submitted on or after 1 Jan 2021 so we are just seeing more papers coming through for publication that need to comply with the new policy. And we are seeing a few cases where the publishers policies and practices conflict with what Plan S stipulates.  We are now at the stage when ’The shit hits the Plan’….”

Open access: it works best when enforced | Campus Morning Mail

“Last month the National Health and Medical Research Council sought submissions on going immediate OA on publication. If publishers refuse the council suggested authors’ accepted manuscripts could be made available by named institutional repositories (CMM April 16).

Which is good, but Drs Kingsley and Smith (both ex Cambridge University’s Office of Scholarly Communication) suggest tighter wording to make intent impossible to ignore.

And they call for checks, which institutions could use to make sure OA actually occurs. “There is evidence that even ‘light touch’ compliance checking results in significant behavioural change,” they write. Especially if “there is a significant consequence for non-compliance,” – which could be tying grants to OA rules….”

Forside – Dansk Open Access-Indikator

From Google’s English:  “The indicator is produced and launched annually by the Danish Agency for Education and Research, which is part of the Ministry of Education and Research. The indicator monitors the implementation of the Danish Open Access strategy 2018-2025 by collecting and analyzing publication data from the Danish universities.

Main menu:

OVERVIEW – National strategic goals and the realization of them at national and university level.
OA TYPES – Types of Open Access realization at national and local level.
DATA – Data for download as well as documentation at an overview and technical level.
GUIDANCE – Information to support the Danish universities’ implementation of Open Access, such as important dates and guidelines.
FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions….”

Plan S Effects 2021 – Part 2, Market Value – Delta Think

“For the sake of analysis, we compared what might happen if ALL authors chose one Plan S compliance route over another. In practice there will be a mix, and so the reality is likely to land somewhere between our two extremes. …

 

Compliance via fully OA journals

Plan S could lead to a slight lift in market value of just under 0.25% in the long term. Plan S articles add incremental revenues by boosting volumes in fully OA journals. Meanwhile with a mild drop in volumes from subscription journals, publishers are able to maintain their prices.
The UK’s UKRI is currently considering its position on OA. If the UKRI were to adopt Plan S principles, then it will make little difference to the market if the fully OA compliance route was followed.

Compliance via repositories

Plan S could lead to a slight fall in market value of just under 0.6% in the long term. This is driven by lost hybrid OA revenue, as authors opt for subscription journals instead.
If the UKRI were to adopt Plan S principles, then the long-term fall in market value would be just under 0.8%. This is another third or so compared with Plan S on its own. The UK’s current policies have driven significant hybrid uptake. If the value of these APCs is lost, it will have a noticeable effect….”

Compliance via fully OA journals

Plan S could lead to a fall in market value of around 2.8%. Subscription journals generate more revenues per article than their OA counterparts. Therefore, a reduction in subscription prices for a given volume of articles will be greater than the gains made from APCs. This adjustment will happen once. Then, as OA output is growing faster than the market as a whole, it will start to drive a very mild increase in market value.
If the UKRI were to adopt Plan S principles, then the long-term fall in market value would be just under 3.4%, or around 20% more than Plan S alone. The same dynamics apply as for Plan S alone….

Guide to Accelerate Public Access to Research Data

“Advancing public access to research data is important to improving transparency and reproducibility of scientific results, increasing scientific rigor and public trust in science, and — most importantly — accelerating the pace of discovery and innovation through the open sharing of research results. Additionally, it is vital that institutions develop and implement policies now to ensure consistency of data management plans across their campuses to guarantee full compliance with federal research agency data sharing requirements. Beyond the establishment of policies, universities must invest in the infrastructure and support necessary to achieve the desired aspirations and aims of the policies. The open sharing of the results of scientific research is a value our two associations have long fought to protect and preserve. It is also a value we must continue to uphold at all levels within our universities. This will mean overcoming the various institutional and cultural impediments which have, at times, hampered the open sharing of research data….”

Increasing transparency through open science badges

“Authors who adopt transparent practices for an article in Conservation Biology are now able to select from 3 open science badges: open data, open materials, and preregistration. Badges appear on published articles as visible recognition and highlight these efforts to the research community. There is an emerging body of literature regarding the influences of badges, for example, an increased number of articles with open data (Kidwell et al 2016) and increased rate of data sharing (Rowhani?Farid et al. 2018). However, in another study, Rowhani?Farid et al. (2020) found that badges did not “noticeably motivate” researchers to share data. Badges, as far as we know, are the only data?sharing incentive that has been tested empirically (Rowhani?Farid et al. 2017).

Rates of data and code sharing are typically low (Herold 2015; Roche et al 2015; Archmiller et al 2020; Culina et al 2020). Since 2016, we have asked authors of contributed papers, reviews, method papers, practice and policy papers, and research notes to tell us whether they “provided complete machine and human?readable data and computer code in Supporting Information or on a public archive.” Authors of 31% of these articles published in Conservation Biology said they shared their data or code, and all authors provide human?survey instruments in Supporting Information or via a citation or online link (i.e., shared materials)….”