Plan S: Unrealistic capped fee structure

Abstract

![Figure][1] ILLUSTRATION: DAVIDE BONAZZI/SALZMAN ART Plan S is an ambitious plan to guarantee that all research funded by public grants is published in open-access journals or platforms by January 2020 (“The world debates open-access mandates,” T. Rabesandratana, In Depth, 4 January, p. [11][2]). The proposed guidelines suggest that publication fees should be covered by the funders or universities and that these charges should be standardized, reasonable, and capped. Although we support the open-access model, we are concerned that the fee structure of Plan S is unrealistic. In Brazil, public funding agencies cover publication fees. However, article processing charges are not supported by supplementary funds for open-access costs; instead, they are subtracted from ongoing grant totals, meaning authors must choose between open access or lab materials. Although Plan S predicts article processing charge waivers under justified conditions, critical points have not been discussed, including acceptable reasons to qualify for discounts or waivers and how the open-access journals will comply with these criteria. If the initiative succeeds in its push for open access, but not in capping publication fees, the changes could easily backfire. Some of the largest and fastest-growing open-access journals today charge upward of US$5000 per online-only article [e.g., ([ 1 ][3], [ 2 ][4])]. It is unclear how commercial editorial services with widely distinct characteristics and interests worldwide could be compelled to standardize and cap these fees at reasonable amounts, particularly within such a short time frame. Without fee caps, publishing in highly visible journals would become unfeasible for smaller grant holders everywhere. The solution to this situation may involve encouraging researchers to publish the bulk of their work in venues that are controlled by scientists themselves. This includes platforms and journals that are backed by strong scientific societies and edited by active scientists. We urge scientists to give preference to such venues. The developers of Plan S should seek closer relations with scientific societies and help to strengthen society-backed publication venues to achieve truly affordable and open scientific publication strategies. 1. [↵][5]Nature Communications, Article Processing Charges ([www.nature.com/ncomms/about/article-processing-charges][6]). 2. [↵][7]Cell Reports FAQ, Publication Charges ([www.cell.com/cell-reports/faq][8]). [1]: pending:yes [2]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/363/6422/11 [3]: #ref-1 [4]: #ref-2 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/about/article-processing-charges [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [8]: http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/faq

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 40 citations exist upstream.