Plan S for…shock

Published in

Veruscript Blog

5 min readMar 29, 2019

Plan S is a big thing in academic publishing at the moment. It is so radical that, if widely adopted, it could completely change the industry and be the tipping point for open access (OA) after 15 long years. Alternatively, if it is not adopted beyond the handful of funders already signed up, it could just be a mere inconvenience to publishers. Here’s a quick synopsis, it’s an important topic and only a five minute read, so definitely worth your time investment if you have anything to do with academic publishing.

What is it?

A plan put together by a group of funders know as cOAlition S (see what they did there?) to increase the speed of open access uptake, which they don’t believe is moving fast enough. Their grantees must open research immediately upon publication, no embargos, and publish under a CC-BY license. In reality, this means that only Gold or Platinum OA publications are acceptability. Publishing in a journal with article processing charges (APCs) is allowed, but there will likely be a cap (level uncertain). Penalties will be applied for non-compliance by researchers (although these are not yet defined).

What’s the fuss about?

Most Gold OA journals are already Plan S compliant, so why are publishers worried? In a nutshell, it’s mainly due to how hybrid journals are treated. These publish subscription content, but give authors the option to make their articles Gold OA by paying an APC. To date, hybrids have been the main drivers for the uptake of OA publishing, as publishers can use established journal brands to attract both OA and non-OA (still the vast majority) authors. This means publishers have been compliant with most funders’ OA remits, but have also protected subscription revenue and reduced risk. Time and money is saved as one journal fits all and the effort of establishing a new OA journal in the field from scratch is not needed — no credibility, indexing or impact factor issues, everything’s already in place and everyone’s a winner, right?

Wrong, unfortunately for publishers, Plan S will no longer fund publication in hybrid journals, except during transformative agreements. This also includes mirror/sister journals (new journal, same editorial team but OA), as these charge for both access and publication, which they do not agree with. The game is up for hybrids and revenue could suffer. Hybrids would now have to (or at least commit to) ‘flip’ to full open access to remain compliant. Subscriptions revenue would be lost and APCs may not fill the revenue gap (especially on highly-selective journals), so publishers are not keen.

Under the plan, as many as 80% of current journals will be excluded from Plan S and some feel that it means a reduction in academic freedom. Consequently, if the plan is successful and journals move to open access, this could also introduce barriers to publication for authors who are unable to pay APCs (particularly Humanities and Social Science authors and those outside Plan S), also reducing academic freedom for non-Plan S researchers.

Finally, if all this wasn’t enough, this will start in January 2020, which if you understand the glacial rate of change in academic publishing, is practically light speed.

Transformative Agreements

There are a number of agreements that have been put in place to smooth the transition. One of these is that ‘Read and Publish’ deals, where libraries pay for paywalled articles as well as immediate open access to articles authored at an institution, will be allowed until 2024. These are basically a big deal for OA content, moving the money paid for subscriptions to funding open access. In the long term cOAlition S wants to move away from them as, as well as perpetuating paid for access, there is a worry they lock in institutions to big publishers and don’t solve the current perceived problems with subscription big deals. However, as the scholarly kitchen points out, the timeline for phasing these out is quite long and their length may help larger player solidify their market positions at the expense of smaller publishers.

Will it work?

That depends on who joins the party. The current club only accounts for a small percentage of research output and it is very European centric — with output affecting only 3% of research (although a recent Clarivate study put this at 15% if you look at collaborations). Global consensus may come, but until then there could be problems that affect global collaboration, as some researchers will now be bound by Plan S, others will not. This may not sit well with international researchers, who as a result of collaborations with Plan S authors, may suddenly find that career-defining journals are now out of their reach. This could cause problems if their funder or institution is particularly focussed on where their research is published.

Likely Outcomes

In reality, regardless of adoption, most of the big publishers will be able to weather this storm. Their large journal portfolios are big enough to accommodate most authors, whether in or out of Plan S. If a Plan S author cannot submit to a hybrid journal, large publishers will most likely have a compliant full OA alternative, so risk is mitigated. Some major publisher are also looking to work with JISC collections to allow CC-BY versions of articles to be open, thus making them compliant. The problem, as Michael Clark in the Scholarly Kitchen details, is for smaller, mainly society publishers with a few selective niche journals, where flipping to an OA model is not as viable and there are no alternative venues for publication in their portfolio. Small publishers will probably have to get further into bed with their larger counterparts to survive. The HSS community will find things hard due to less OA funding as in the sciences and then there is the question of how to handle monographs…

As it stands, the percentage of research published by cOAlition S signatories is small, so is probably not going to be transformative at this stage, but it could gain traction. Will European researchers like it, some will, but many won’t as it may rule out their usual journals.

Is it the really right approach?

That remains to be seen, there is a definite desire for open access by many in the community and publishers are not adverse to it. However, many commentators have argued that the Green OA route and existing funder policies are already in place that address many access issues, so there are other ways to move forward, particularly as from a researcher point of view, OA is not always their top priority. They argue the industry is in a state of flux with several models out there and one size does not fit all. Also, although not well liked (particularly by librarians), hybrids have been doing more than anything else to drive OA and publishers say they should be reconsidered for inclusion in the plan. OA advocates feel that change is not happening fast enough, so something radical needed doing and this top-down approach forces the move. Whether the rest of the world will follow is still up for debate though.

P.S. Veruscript’s publishing services let you set up Gold OA journals that can comply with Plan S, so if you want to work with us, drop us a line!