cOAlition S confirms the end of its financial support for Open Access publishing under transformative arrangements after 2024 | Plan S

Transformative arrangements – including Transformative Agreements and Transformative Journals – were developed to encourage subscription journals to transition to full and immediate open access within a defined timeframe (31st December 2024, as specified in the Plan S Implementation Guidance). After careful consideration of the outcomes of transformative arrangements, the leadership of cOAlition S reaffirms that, as a principle, its members will no longer financially support these arrangements after 2024.

Exceptionally, individual cOAlition S funders may still choose to financially participate in Transformative Agreements beyond 2024 as part of their respective national strategies. Such exceptions will be communicated on the cOAlition S website.

Support for Transformative Journals will also cease at the end of 2024. In anticipation of this, no new applications to this programme will be considered after the 30th of June 2023.

 

European academies hit out at high author charges for open access publishing | Science|Business

“Open access means more and more scientific research is free to read. But now there are complaints about ‘massive’ fees that must be paid upfront by authors and claims commercial publishers are making excessive profits….

ALLEA, the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, claims commercial publishers are making the large profits from open access publishing under what is known as the gold model, which allows journal papers to be free to read as soon as they are published.

Instead of journal subscriptions, publishers are paid article processing charges (APCs). These fees can sometimes be thousands of euros.

The financial burden is shifting away from the readers of papers and onto the authors. This is putting a strain on academics around the world, particularly those in less well-off countries, ALLEA says in a report published last month. These fees are often rolled into partner agreements with big publishers, but researchers not covered by these agreements must usually pay APCs.

ALLEA claims that publishers make around $2 billion per year from APCs….

Robert-Jan Smits, president of Eindhoven University of Technology and former European Commission director general for research, who is a leading advocate for open access, told Science|Business that a cap should be placed on APCs to “avoid an explosion of costs,” saying, “There is enough money in the system, it is just in the wrong place.” …”

Freier Zugang umgehend und uneingeschränkt – das ändert ab dem 1. Januar 2023

From Google’s English:  “The SNSF will adjust its Open Access requirements at the beginning of 2023. Scientific articles must now be accessible immediately. This corresponds to the principles of cOAlition S, which the SNSF joined in June 2022….

If scientific results are only publicly accessible after a blocking period, this not only harms science, but also society, which has often paid for this research. “From the point of view of the SNSF, the time for such delays in articles is now over,” says Matthias Egger, President of the National Research Council. “We no longer accept blocking periods.” If the SNSF funds a research project, the resulting articles must be freely available immediately.

As before, this obligation can be fulfilled in three different ways: publication in an open access journal (golden way), in a hybrid journal or as a manuscript version (“Author’s Accepted Manuscript”) in a digital archive (green way). The regulations for books and book chapters remain unchanged.

Use without any restrictions

Other requirements will also be new for 2023. The SNSF stipulates a CC-BY license for all articles. Scientific articles are primarily distributed and read digitally. Both the researchers and the SNSF have an interest in knowledge being spread as widely as possible and used in as many different ways as possible. The so-called Creative Commons licenses (CC licenses) are the standard today for the use of digital content and content distributed via the Internet. This means: The articles can basically be used without restrictions – from further distribution to automated evaluation in order to gain completely new insights. Of course, the researchers must be named as the authors each time they are used, and it must be clear whether the content has been changed.

rights reserved

Many publishers restrict what researchers can do with the articles they have created themselves through exclusive publication contracts. Very often these limitations also prevent the fulfillment of OA obligations. The SNSF is therefore adopting the rights retention strategy developed by cOAlition S: researchers reserve the right to make their manuscript freely available immediately and under a CC-BY license when they submit it. They refer to their obligations towards the SNSF….”

Ouvrir la Science – Open Science library

“The guide explains the rights retention strategy, its benefits for the researcher and the operational details of its application. It also provides an FAQ that addresses the main questions about choosing licenses, the options available at the various stages of publication, and how to manage relationships with publishers….”

IEEE Commits its Entire Hybrid Journal Portfolio to Transformative Journal Status Aligned with Plan S

IEEE, the world’s largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for humanity, announced today that it has committed its full portfolio of more than 160 hybrid journals, which publish both open access and subscription-based content, to become Transformative Journals under Plan S.

This commitment means that any authors receiving research grants from Coalition S, a group of research funders, are compliant with Plan S requirements when publishing their research articles in any IEEE fully open access or hybrid journals. In addition to the existing direct open access agreements with hundreds of institutions, all of IEEE’s hybrid journals now qualify as ‘Transformative Journals’ under Plan S.

IEEE Commits its Entire Hybrid Journal Portfolio to Transformative Journal Status Aligned with Plan S | STM Publishing News

“IEEE, the world’s largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for humanity, announced today that it has committed its full portfolio of more than 160 hybrid journals, which publish both open access and subscription-based content, to become Transformative Journals under Plan S. 

This commitment means that any authors receiving research grants from Coalition S, a group of research funders, are compliant with Plan S requirements when publishing their research articles in any IEEE fully open access or hybrid journals. In addition to the existing direct open access agreements with hundreds of institutions, all of IEEE’s hybrid journals now qualify as ‘Transformative Journals’ under Plan S….”

Why price transparency in research publishing is a positive step | Hindawi

“In 2019, Hindawi took part in the price transparency framework pilot run by Information Power on behalf of cOAlition S. Three years later and the coalition’s new Journal Comparison Service (JCS) is up and running. Hindawi is proud to be one of the publishers that has contributed data to this service. Taking part has helped us focus on the rigour of our own reporting system and has enabled us to give researchers greater choice when choosing a journal by giving more visibility to our services in our new and publicly available journal reports.

Only a few publishers took part in the pilot and the framework remains untested. It’s not yet clear how useful the JCS will be to the institutions who might want to access the service and use the data, or how the JCS will increase transparency about costs as well as pricing across the publishing industry more generally. In part, this is because it’s seen by some to provide an overly simplistic view of publishing. Compartmentalising publishing services into seven or eight different categories  (see page 20 of the JCS guidance for publishers) inevitably constrains the many different and often overlapping services that publishers provide. In addition, limiting the price breakdown of these services into the percentage that each contributes to a journal’s APC also means that the real costs aren’t visible. There are also pragmatic reasons that make it very difficult for some publishers to collect data consistently, especially for those with large portfolios that operate on multiple platforms or have journal-specific workflows. Finally, fully open-access publishers who don’t have an APC business model can’t take part, even if they want to be more transparent. However, we believe the upsides are large. Hindawi has more than 200 journals in our portfolio and the following outlines a few of the ways we, and we hope those who contribute to and access our journals, are benefiting. Our focus is on the ‘Information Power’ framework for the JCS and on the ‘Journal Quality’ information specifically (columns P-Z in the template spreadsheet). This information relates to data on the journal workflow, especially peer review (such as timings and the no of reviewers involved). We know that there is a long way to go to make all publishing services transparent, but we are learning from our participation in the JCS and will continue to explore ways to improve transparency….”

Elsevier absent from journal cost comparison | Times Higher Education (THE)

“Of the 2,070 titles whose information will become accessible under the JCS, although not directly to researchers, 1,000 belong to the US academic publishing giant Wiley, while another 219 journals owned by Hindawi, which was bought by Wiley last year, also appear on the list.

Several other fully open access publishers will also participate on the comparison site including Plos, the Open Library of Humanities, and F1000, while learned society presses and university publishers, including the Royal Society, Rockefeller University Press, and the International Union of Crystallography, are also part of the scheme.

Other notable participants include the prestigious life sciences publisher eLife, EMBO Press and the rapidly growing open access publisher, Frontiers.

However, the two of the world’s largest scholarly publishers – Elsevier and Springer Nature, whose most prestigious titles charge about £8,000 for APCs – are not part of the scheme….

Under the Plan S agreement, scholarly journals are obliged to become ‘transformative journals’ and gradually increase the proportion of non-paywalled content over a number of years. Those titles that do not make their papers free at the point of publication will drop out of the Plan S scheme, meaning authors cannot use funds provided by any of the 17 funding agencies and six foundations now signed up to Plan S. There are, however, no immediate consequences for a publisher who decides not to share their price and service data through the JCS.  …”

Frankfurt Book Fair 2022: A ‘Seismic Transformation’ in Scholarly Publishing

“On August 25, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) announced a landmark new public access policy set to be in place by the end of 2025. Questions remain as to how the policy directive will translate in practice, particularly with regard to licensing and funding arrangements. But there can be little doubt it will accelerate the transition to open access business models among scientific and scholarly publishers.

“We don’t know enough about the funding situation to make plans in earnest, so we’ll have to wait and see how the bigger federal agencies put the memo’s requirements into practice,” observes Sybille Geisenheyer, Director of Open Access Strategy and Licensing at the American Chemical Society (ACS). Nevertheless, Geisenheyer sees the OSTP policy announcement as a positive step. “I honestly welcome it, because it means we have a clear understanding of the direction of travel.” 

With the OSTP making clear that it expects to see “business model innovation” from publishers, so-called transformative agreements are likely to play a key role. And while these agreements come in a range of flavors, including so called read-and-publish and publish-and-read and other models, the common goal is to transition the payments made by libraries away from subscription access toward open access publication….”

Home | French RRS Monitor

“The Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) is an initiative from a consortium of research funders, the Coaliation S, which promote immediate open access without requiring payment to publish (no Article Processing Charge). The RRS is a way to publish in open access without paying.

This website describe publications in the french repository HAL, where the Right Retention Strategy has been applied….”

Plan S’ Journal Comparison Service – guidance and practical input – OASPA | October 10, 2022

“The end-user portal of cOAlition S’ Journal Comparison Service (JCS) launched on 28th September and is now live.  Publishers are being invited by Plan S to populate their transparency data* into the JCS. The JCS is a secure, free, online service aiming to enable those who procure publishing services to better understand what they are paying for. It also represents a way for publishers to achieve greater transparency on their services and related pricing….”

Why making academic research free is complicated – Vox

“Freeing research largely paid for by taxpayer money can seem like a no-brainer, but over time, the potential downsides of open science efforts like the Plan S mandate have become more apparent. While pay-to-publish but free-to-read platforms bring more research to the public, they can add barriers for researchers and worsen some existing inequalities in academia. Scientific publishing will remain a for-profit industry and a highly lucrative one for publishers. Shifting the fees onto authors doesn’t change this.

Many of the newly founded open-access journals drop the fees entirely, but even if they’re not trying to make a profit, they still need to cover their operating costs. They fall back on ad revenue, individual donations or philanthropic grants, corporate sponsorship, and even crowdfunding.

But open-access platforms often lack the prestige of well-known top journals like Nature. Scientists early in their careers — as well as those at less wealthy universities in low-income countries — often rely on precarious, short-term grant funding to carry out their research. Their career depends on putting out an impressive publication record, which is already an uphill battle….”

 

The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia joins cOAlition S | Plan S

Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is the first Australian organisation to join cOAlition S and the country’s first funding agency to introduce the requirement that scholarly publications arising from the research it funds must be made freely available and accessible.