As of January 1, 2021, a group of European government funding agencies and private funding organizations known as “cOAlition S” began implementing its “Plan S” initiative to promote full and immediate open access in scientific publishing. Under this initiative, research funded by cOAlition S members has to be published in open access journals, on open access platforms, or made immediately available through open access repositories without embargo. Large international funders like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and World Health Organization are part of the coalition, meaning that Plan S has serious implications for publishing all over the world. In 2017, 35% of papers published in Nature and 31% of those in Science listed a cOAlition S member as a funder. In compliance with Plan S, Springer Nature and AAAS have recently modified their policies regarding open access.

In what is known as a “Gold Open Access” model, articles are made freely available under a Creative Commons license, allowing for free adaptation and reuse. Under this model, publishers can no longer charge subscription fees, which have traditionally made up a large portion of their revenue. To cover the costs associated with publishing under a Gold OA model, they instead collect an Article Processing Charge (APC), which is paid by the authors, their institution, or research funders. Journals offering this model are compliant with Plan S, since they make articles available immediately and openly.

Under a “Green Open Access” policy, authors archive a version of their paper in an online repository where it is subject to their own copyright terms. The specifics of these policies vary by publisher: many impose 6 or 12-month embargoes on the posting of final, peer-reviewed articles, while others allow immediate posting to a repository. Plan S allows publication under a Green OA journal only if the article is made available immediately in an open access repository and uses a CC-BY license, allowing for free republishing and adaptation. The latter of these provisions was controversial since very few publishers required it previously, and it could threaten subscription revenues. More detailed information on types of open access and the transition to Plan S can be found in Science’s guide to the new open access landscape.

Plan S has received criticism from professional and scientific societies since its inception. Some have expressed concern that the policy would threaten their revenues and the services funded by them. Another concern, raised by Science publisher Bill Moran at a 2019 RNRF round table, is maintaining the quality of publications, since APC-based funding may incentivize a quantity-over-quality approach to publishing. Other worries include a potential reduction in publishing options for authors and highly demanding requirements for publishers, as detailed by National Academy of Sciences president Marcia McNutt in a 2019 opinion article. Criticism of the initiative is ongoing: dozens of publishers and societies signed a letter criticizing its “Rights Retention Strategy” on February 3.

Changes to scientific publishing during the COVID-19 pandemic have also affected the discourse around open access. During the pandemic, researchers have published COVID-related research more quickly and openly than normal, and dozens of publishers and journals have made COVID research free to access. While some advocates of open access claim it is a turning point, there is not yet a consensus on what the long-term effects of this shift in publishing practices will be.

Posted in Renewable Resources Report