Potential White House open-access edict could upend scientific publishers

Physics Today ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (2) ◽  
pp. 1219a
Author(s):  
Laurence Bénichou ◽  
Koen Martens ◽  
Graham Higley ◽  
Isabelle Gérard ◽  
Steven Dessein ◽  
...  

Most natural history institutions in Europe have been scientific publishers sincetheir foundation and have a long scholarly publishing tradition. Nowadays, they areconfronted with rapid technological developments and face complex strategic andtechnical questions related to visibility, access, format, and the financial structure oftheir titles. These issues require a common vision and an international strategy toensure that the community acts in a consistent and coordinated way. A consortiumof institutions is thus launching the European Journal of Taxonomy to provide analternative public open-access business model, where neither authors nor readers haveto pay fees for subscriptions or publication. This paper focuses on the benefits for theinstitutions on taking greater control over their communication process.


2019 ◽  

The present special edition investigates which opportunities open access to scientific publications offers to legal studies and which challenges it poses. Scientific publishers play an important role with regard to this issue; their perspective is therefore examined first. Nine reports from legal-scientific open access periodicals show that open access is possible with as well as without traditional publishers. Other contributions explain the role of academic infrastructure, especially of libraries and promoters of research. The publication is rounded off by an opinion analysis from a transnational conference on the subject which took place in October 2018 (www.jurOA.de).


2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (Supplement_3) ◽  
pp. 23-24
Author(s):  
Teresa A Davis

Abstract A group of European funding agencies launched an initiative called “Plan S” in September 2018 that would require scientific publications resulting from funded research to be published only in Plan S-compliant open access journals by 2020. A delegation from the European Commission visited the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and other federal agencies in December 2018 to gain support for Plan S. Plan S would force authors to publish solely in open access journals and bar researchers from publishing in hybrid journals, such as the Journal of Animal Science, that allow authors to choose between Gold and Green Open Access publishing. Gold Open Access allows immediate open access with articles made freely available at time of publication and requires payment of article processing charges that are usually higher than page charges of subscription-based journals. Green Open Access publishing is subscription-based and defers open access for the publisher embargo period (usually 12 months). Because 85% of journals are hybrid or subscription based, Plan S would limit researcher’s academic freedom to decide where to publish and prevent authors from publishing in most research society journals that are hybrid or subscription-based. Research society-based journals provide rigorous peer review and comprehensive editorial processes and thus, have earned the trust of researchers, professionals, and the public. Funneling research output to non-research society based open access journals may distort the dissemination of scientific research and reduce the quality of scientific communication. Nonprofit research societies use revenues from their publishing operations to finance educational, journalistic, outreach, and other activities and thus, Plan S threatens the financial stability of these research societies. Authors should be allowed to choose the best venue to publish their work. Plan S must be rejected.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Buck

This document was submitted by Arnold Ventures in response to a White House request for comments on open access to federally funded research and associated materials (data, code). See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/31/2020-06622/request-for-information-public-access-to-peer-reviewed-scholarly-publications-data-and-code.


2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-41
Author(s):  
Maria A. M. Heijne ◽  
Wilma J. S. M. van Wezenbeek

AbstractIn this paper, the authors – both of whom are library directors and involved in the contract negotiations with the bigger scientific publishers – present the conditions that formed the Dutch approach in these negotiations. A combination of clear political support, a powerful delegation, a unique bargaining model and fidelity to their principles geared the Dutch to their success in achieving open access. The authors put these joint license and open access negotiations in the perspective of open science and show that they are part of the transition towards open access.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document