Tag: cOAlition S

  • European Science Editing Issue 45(3) released!

    The latest issue of our journal, European Science Editing, is now online. The full issue is available to EASE members, the Editorial and Original articles are freely available to all readers.

    We hand over to our Editor in Chief, Ksenija Baždarić, for her introduction to the issue:

    In October, EASE will host a double event in collaboration with the European Council combining our member-only AGM with an open participation discussion forum: GDPR and privacy in journal publishing: good practice for submission and peer review processes.

    EASE has signed the Leiden declaration on more transparent editorial journal policies; we invite you to sign it as well.

    We thank our colleague John Hilton for his invaluable work as the News Notes editor for so long. We wish him success in his many endeavours and at the same time we welcome Yateendra Joshi as the first ESE copy editor.

    This issue opens with the editorial by our Council member Rachael Lammey from CrossRef, “Data sharing and data citation: join the movement!”, in which she brings news about data sharing. In the original article, Juan Jose Prieto analyzes documents about ResearchGate indexed in Google Scholar between 2008 and 2017. The essay section has two interesting articles. The first offers guidance about how to detect misconduct in biomedical images by Ye and Lin. The second, by Kozak and Hartley, comments on the inconsiderate nature of many science articles.

    In the meeting reports section, Olga Kirillova reports from the 8th International Scientific and Practical Conference “World-Class Scientific Publication – 2019: Strategy and Tactics of Management and Development” in Moscow, Russia and Fiona Murphy’s Researcher to Reader Conference that takes place in London every February. This issue’s forum digest summarizes a vivid discussion about reviewing and confidentiality (a must-read) and in This Site I Like you can read about the cOAlition S alliance and its plan to accelerate the transition to a full open access model for scholary publication.

    Ksenija Baždarić
    Editor in Chief
    European Science Editing

  • Plan S – what impact will the new OA policy have on your journal

    This blog post has been written by EASE President, Pippa Smart, at the request of some EASE members who have asked EASE for advice about “Plan S”

    Open access is an established principle in scholarly communication but the full transition to global OA is nowhere close after almost two decades of discussion. Several grant funders have introduced requirements to mandate OA but still, compliance has not met expectations. To speed up the transition, Plan S was announced last September by cOAlition S; a consortium of (mostly European) funders led by the European Research Council. The proposal would require anyone in receipt of grant funding to make their work OA at the point of publication.

    The plan is now supported by 15 funders including several national funders (e.g. Netherlands, Ireland, Finland, France) and a couple of charities, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Of note, the Wellcome Trust is not part of the coalition, although it has voiced support and re-issued its OA policy in line with Plan S (plus some additional requirements over data).

    The plan is currently to come into force for all publications in January 2020.

    The plan has 10 principles:

    1. Authors retain copyright.
    2. Funders will set the criteria for what services journals must provide.
    3. The funders will support new journals and platforms if none are available.
    4. OA publication fees will be covered by the grant funders.
    5. The amount of publication fee will be capped (but the cap has not been decided yet).
    6. Universities, research organizations and libraries are asked to align their policies.
    7. Books will be included later.
    8. The importance of repositories is identified.
    9. Hybrid journals are not considered compliant.
    10. The funders will monitor compliance.

    Grantees will be required to make their articles open access at the point of publication under a CC BY licence (i.e. allowing reuse for any purpose including commercial and derivative publications). The work can be published in a subscription journal so long as the accepted version is available, at point of publication, in a repository under a CC BY licence. An OA journal is compliant if it is indexed by DOAJ and uses a CC BY licence.

    The main differences between this policy and others are:

    1. Publishing OA in a hybrid journal will not satisfy the requirement. (A hybrid journal is a subscription journal that allows authors to select an OA option in return for paying a publication fee.)
    2. The plan does not allow for any embargo period – i.e. it stipulates that the article must be freely/publicly available at the point of publication (other policies usually allow a 6- or 12-month embargo period).
    3. Compliant journals must satisfy various technical and quality standards.

    The proposal has changed somewhat since the original announcement and the consortium issued a call for feedback on their guidance for implementation which closed on 8th February.

    Many publishing, library and research groups submitted comments. In general the feedback has been cautiously positive, but many commentators have raised concerns – particularly about the timeline, the lack of consultation and the “one size fits all” approach.

    Most of the criticisms relate to publishing implementation and the impact on researchers. Some responses have suggested that the impact on smaller journals, learned and academic societies and university presses will be more detrimental than to the larger commercial publishers.

    A web page is available which is tracking and linking to the public submissions. You can also read a summary of the feedback on the Scholarly Kitchen blog.

    It is hard to anticipate what impact the plan will have on journal editors. Much will depend on the content of each journal and how many submissions come from grantees of the funders who have signed up to the plan. The plan may serve to deprive some journals of submissions (if the journal is non-compliant). The objective of cOAlition S and Plan S is to force a change in the publishing environment by creating stringent requirements.

    Editors concerned about this plan are advised to speak to their publishers. EASE will provide updates through our member newsletter.

    Pippa Smart
    President, EASE