I've been thinking about #PlanS a lot since the announcement. I've been reflecting on my experience with the foundation's policy implementation. Random thoughts:
"Whether the plan succeeds or fizzles out hangs on how the funders implement the new policy." sciencebusiness.net/news/hope-and-…
"Whether the plan succeeds or fizzles out hangs on how the funders implement the new policy." sciencebusiness.net/news/hope-and-…
I agree & think that there is enough funder experience in #openaccess policy implementation to successfully implement this. While it's important to critically review each new policy development the community that wants to see change really needs to support any effort to change
It can be scary being first in something - however it can also reaffirm that need for change. So far I haven't seen many examples of open access being a detriment to research. For PlanS this isn't a single entity, but an entire coalition, which is quite impressive.
Concerns over the timeline of 2020 - I think this is very doable depending on how the policy is applied. If applies to all new grants starting in 2020 this provides grantees the freedom to agree to complying with the policy. Then it's another 1-2 years before publication...
That could be 4 years before needing to comply. That gives publishers plenty of time to adjust - even if it's just for these grantees before scaling up to the entire publication. We negotiated with non-compliant publishers for the 2 year transition period.
Some remain non-compliant, some were creative in finding a solution, some held out to the very last moment to see how serious we were. All of this was totally fine & we pushed forward with policy implementation, focusing on education to program staff & grantees.
We also launched Gates Open Research in this time to provide a non-traditional way to comply with the policy. I absolutely have loved this project & have seen so many positive experiences for grantees - many that alleviate pain-points with current publishing
I think that PlanS & similar policies are a strong signal that funders are realizing metrics such as IF are too flawed & are prioritizing access to knowledge & fostering collaborations over where the research is published. There is a long way to go on this topic but it's a start
Hybrid journals have been a huge administration headache for me. Ensuring that the article isn't paywalled post paying an APC & has the correct license is too time consuming for the payee. I wish publishers in general had better systems to process this.
I really wish that publishers would not publish articles behind a paywall until the APC is fully paid. We are often given little time to pay before a paywall is put up. This is disingenuous & hurts the intent of OA. We've had to pay to access articles we are paying an APC for.
In regards to the "Open Access publication fees are applied, their funding is standardised and capped" I am very curious as to how this will be executed. scienceeurope.org/wp-content/upl…
An APC cap would be very interesting & I, like many others, am curious how in execution this would work & what consequences could be inadvertently created. However, I do think as the schol comm market is unlike any other bargaining publishing pricing & stating the cost of "value"
is an important practice. There needs to be more transparency on the cost of publication. I would love to see a standardization of publishing costs. I was not prepared for the type of addition fees we would be paying for publications.
There are - submission, color, page, figure, author edits, administration - fees that are applied somewhat unknown & seemingly randomly across publishers. These additional fees can mean we are paying close to 10k for a single article to be OA & published. Prices must be upfront
As @Protohedgehog points out the implementation should think carefully on how to avoid "having commercial publishers continue to corrupt OA through high APCs,restrictive licensing/copyright agreements, and embargoes on ‘green’ OA that are clearly not in the public interest."
This includes "Another potential weakness that we see is the potential for disruption of the infrastructure by commercial players." Funders will have to back up their statement of supporting OA infrastructure fossilsandshit.com/full-comments-…
In the past this has been a struggle for funders & libraries. I truly believe that there is enough money out in the system to switch to fully OA publishing. Does this mean that some publishers will close? Probably. Does this mean metrics of impact & quality need to change? Yes
I think this shift will change the schol comm landscape quite a bit, but I'm positive it will be for the improvement of research. Maybe less articles will be published & the focus will shift to data sharing & working more collaboratively with reporting of info along the way
Overall we know that the current system has too many issues to sustain & play into as-is. A single policy is not going to be able to solve everything. It's going to take many stakeholders, many risks, many reflections, and many pivots.
I couldn't agree more with @Protohedgehog " If publishers are service providers, their business models should be dictated by the needs and demands of the research community." And it's not the responsibility of funders, institutions, & libraries to prop up these businesses
Especially if they aren't receiving the level of service desired. Other business/publishers will be there to fill this need. And I hope the open community continues to highlight & support such infrastructure. Engage with the rest of the research community to raise awareness
I think the future is promising and I can't wait to see what is accomplished by 2020 and beyond. #openaccess #openscience
