• Revision ID 86995 PUBLISHED
  • 2018-09-06 01:06:23
  • by Robbie Morrison (talk | contribs)
  • Note: added new section detailing open access under Plan-S
 
   
Title Title
European countries push to end paywalls for publicly-funded scientific studies  European countries to end paywalls for publicly funded scientific studies
Summary Summary
The $20 billion industry of scientific publishing may be in jeopardy after eleven national agencies say no to subscription model  The $24 billion scientific publishing industry may be in jeopardy after 11 national agencies say no to subscription model
Highlights Highlights
Content Content
<b>Major national funders of scientific research announced they will stop financing studies that are published behind paywalls by 2020. The open-initiative proposal, </b><a href="https://www.scienceeurope.org/coalition-s/"><b>known as Plan-S</b></a><b>, would dramatically alter how peer-reviewed articles are published.</b>  <b>Major national funders of scientific research announced that by 2020 they'll stop financing studies published behind paywalls. The open-initiative proposal, </b><a href="https://www.scienceeurope.org/coalition-s/"><b>known as Plan-S</b></a><b>, could dramatically alter how peer-reviewed articles are published.</b>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Under the plan,</span> <a href="https://www.scienceeurope.org/coalition-s/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">eleven national research funders</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, including the </span><span style="font-weight: 400;">UK Research and Innovation</span><span style="font-weight: 400;">, would require scientists who accept their public grants to publish their work in open-access platforms. This plan would exclude </span><a href="https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2017/monitoring-transition-open-access-2017.pdf"><span style="font-weight: 400;">roughly 85 percent</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> of peer-reviewed journals as of 2017 which charge some sort of fee in order to access their studies </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;">(Universities UK). </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400;">Plan-S has sparked backlash from scientific publishing companies, which largely support the subscription model.  </span>  <span style="font-weight: 400">Under the plan,</span> <a href="https://www.scienceeurope.org/coalition-s/"><span style="font-weight: 400">11 national research funders</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400">, including </span><span style="font-weight: 400">UK Research and Innovation</span><span style="font-weight: 400">, will require scientists who accept their public grants to publish their work in open-access platforms. The plan would exclude </span><a href="https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2017/monitoring-transition-open-access-2017.pdf"><span style="font-weight: 400">roughly 85 percent</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400"> of peer-reviewed journals that, as of 2017, charge a fee to users to access studies </span><i><span style="font-weight: 400">(Universities UK). </span></i><span style="font-weight: 400">Plan-S has sparked backlash from scientific publishing companies, which largely support the subscription model.  </span>
&nbsp;  
<h2><b>Why scientists support open-access</b></h2> <h2><b>Why scientists support open-access</b></h2>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">The eleven research agencies in question fund approximately $8.8 billion in research every year, </span><a href="https://www.scienceeurope.org/coalition-s/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">according to Nature</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">, all of which come from taxpayers of Europe. Supporters of open-access argue that the same taxpayers should be able to read the articles they helped finance, instead of paying the scientific publishers, which make up a </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science"><span style="font-weight: 400;">19 billion pound global industry</span></a><i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> (Guardian). </span></i>  <span style="font-weight: 400">The 11 research agencies behind the plan fund approximately $8.8 billion in research every year, </span><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06178-7"><span style="font-weight: 400">according to Nature.</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400"> All of their funds come from taxpayers in Europe. Supporters of open-access argue the same taxpayers should be able to read the articles they helped finance, instead of paying scientific publishers, which make up a </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science"><span style="font-weight: 400">$24.4 billion global industry</span></a><i><span style="font-weight: 400"> (Guardian). </span></i>
&nbsp;  
<h2><b>Why publishing companies oppose</b></h2>  <h2><b>Why publishing companies oppose open-access</b></h2>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Publishing companies claim that open-access initiatives will “</span><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/european-science-funders-ban-grantees-publishing-paywalled-journals"><span style="font-weight: 400;">undermine academic freedom” and the solvency of future research</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;"> (ScienceMag). </span>  <span style="font-weight: 400">Publishing companies claim open-access initiatives will “</span><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/european-science-funders-ban-grantees-publishing-paywalled-journals"><span style="font-weight: 400">undermine academic freedom” and the solvency of future research</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400"> (<em>ScienceMag</em>). </span>
&nbsp;  
  <h2>Open access under Plan-S</h2>
  Definitions for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access">open access</a> range from free-of-charge downloads under standard copyright to genuine open licensing whereby authors grant users the freedom to modify and share their content subject only to attribution.
  Plan-S provides for open licensing under its ten point statement (<a href="http://scieur.org/plan-s">PDF</a>). The plan covers all scientific publications deriving from research funded by participating bodies. The plan requires that (point 1):
  <ul>
   <li>authors retain their <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright">copyright</a> (rather than assign this right to the publisher)</li>
   <li>publications be open licensed in accordance with the 2003 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Declaration_on_Open_Access_to_Knowledge_in_the_Sciences_and_Humanities">Berlin Declaration</a></li>
   <li>the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license">Creative Commons</a> attribution (CC-BY) license is preferred (version not indicated)</li>
  </ul>
  The plan also states that, in the interests of equity, open access fees are to be covered by funders and universities and not individual researchers (point 7). While open licenses remain silent on the question of payment, it is not feasible in practice to charge for a publication with an open license.
<h2><b>How would Plan-S change publishing</b></h2>  <h2><b>How will Plan-S change publishing?</b></h2>
<span style="font-weight: 400;">Under this proposal, </span><a href="https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/research/scientific-journal-subscriptions-are-facing-extinction-open-access-is-on-the-horizon-in-europe/"><span style="font-weight: 400;">publishers would be paid upfront </span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">by national research groups to cover the cost of editing and keeping the studies online</span><i><span style="font-weight: 400;"> (European Scientist).</span></i>  <span style="font-weight: 400">Under the plan, </span><a href="https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/research/scientific-journal-subscriptions-are-facing-extinction-open-access-is-on-the-horizon-in-europe/"><span style="font-weight: 400">publishers will be paid upfront </span></a><span style="font-weight: 400">by national research groups to cover the costs of editing and keeping studies online</span><i><span style="font-weight: 400"> (European Scientist).</span></i>
  <h2>Recent articles</h2>
  <ul>
   <li><a href="https://www.wikitribune.com/article/33444/">German institutions</a> push for open-access of their articles</li>
  </ul>
Categories Categories
Europe, Internet, Law, Science, Technology, United Kingdom, Science Europe, Internet, Law, Science, Technology, United Kingdom, Science
Article type Article type
  report
Tags Tags
creative commons, European Commission, open access, Open Publishing, p, Plan S  creative commons, European Commission, open access, Open Publishing, Plan S
Author byline Author byline
Yes Yes
Has hero Has hero
Yes Yes
Hero Alignment Hero Alignment
full full
Hero Image URL Hero Image URL
None None
Featured Image URL Featured Image URL
https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wikitribune-uploads-master/2018/09/04190924/scientist.jpg https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wikitribune-uploads-master/2018/09/04190924/scientist.jpg
Sources Sources
  <p>Berlin Declaration (22 October 2003). <a href="https://openaccess.mpg.de/67605/berlin_declaration_engl.pdf"><em>Berlin Declaration on open access to knowledge in the sciences and humanities</em></a>. Munich, Germany: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft.</p>
  <p>Dunphy, Siobhán (4 September 2018). <a href="https://www.europeanscientist.com/en/rese%0Aarch/scientific-journal-subscriptions-are-facing-extinction-open-access-is-on-the-horizon-in-europe/">Scientific journal subscriptions are facing extinction: open-access is on the horizon in Europe</a>. <em>European Scientist</em>.</p>
  <p>Enserink, Martin (4 September 2018). <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/09/european-science-fund%0Aers-ban-grantees-publishing-paywalled-journals">European science funders ban grantees from publishing in paywalled journals</a>. <em>Science</em>. Washington DC, USA. ISSN <a href="https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1095-9203">1095-9203</a>. No conflict of interest declared despite being an interested party.</p>
  <p>Else, Holly (4 September 2018). <a href="http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06178-7">“Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions”</a>. <em>Nature</em>. Webpage, also avaliable as PDF. No conflict of interest declared despite being an interested party.</p>
  <p>Jubb, Michael, Andrew Plume, Stephanie Oeben, Lydia Brammer, Rob Johnson, Cihan Bütün, and Stephen Pinfield (December 2017). <a href="https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2017/monitoring-transition-open-access-2017.pdf"><em>Monitoring the transition to open access</em></a>. London, United Kingdom: Universities UK. ISBN 978-1-84036-390-6. No conflict of interest declared despite three of seven authors being from interested party Elsevier.</p>
  <p>Plan S (30 August 2018). <a href="http://scieur.org/plan-s"><em>Plan S: Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications</em></a>. PDF.</p>
  <p>Schiltz, Marc (4 September 2018). <a href="http://scieur.org/preamble"><em>Science without publication paywalls a preamble to: cOAlition S for the realisation of full and immediate open access</em></a>. Brussels, Belgium: Science Europe.</p>
  <p>Science Europe (2018). <a href="https://www.scienceeurope.org/coalition-s/">Science Europe — cOAlition S — Making open access a reality by 2020</a>. <em>Science Europe</em>. Webpage.</p>

Subscribe to our newsletter

Be the first to collaborate on our developing articles

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Connect with us on Discord Email us