Coalition SEdit
Coalition S, officially cOALition S, is a coalition of national research funders and philanthropy bodies dedicated to ensuring that publications arising from publicly funded research are freely accessible to the public. Born out of a push to curb paywalls and speed the dissemination of scientific knowledge, it is best known for Plan S, a set of binding principles that seeks immediate Open Access (OA) to funded research. The idea is simple in intent—let the public get the results of publicly funded work without delay—but the practical implementation has stirred a broad set of debates among researchers, libraries, publishers, and universities. Proponents argue that OA undercuts inefficiency in the research ecosystem and strengthens the return on taxpayer investment, while critics warn that rigid mandates can upend established publishing models and impose costs they say are not always easy to bear.
Coalition S operates through Plan S, a policy framework announced in 2018 that sets requirements for how funded research should be published. The plan calls for immediate OA in compliant journals or platforms and typically requires a Creative Commons Attribution license or an equivalent that permits reuse. The emphasis is on making results available instantly rather than after an embargo period, and it pushes the system toward licensing and reuse rights that facilitate broad dissemination and downstream innovation. The initiative has drawn attention not only for its goals but also for its implications for researchers, publishers, and the broader scholarly communications landscape. See Plan S for the formal policy text and its stated goals, and cOALition S for the organizing body behind the effort.
History and scope
cOALition S was formed to coordinate a concerted push toward OA across funders, with the aim of aligning funding practices to a shared standard of openness. Since its inception, the coalition has expanded to include a wide range of national and international funders from Europe and beyond, along with major research organizations that support rapid, waiver-free access to funded work. The centerpiece of the initiative is Plan S, which lays out concrete requirements for funded publications and emphasizes license terms that enable broad reuse and analysis. For readers, this places OA front and center in the research workflow, tying the decision about where to publish to the obligation to provide immediate access to the public. See Open Access for the broader movement, and see Transformative agreement as a mechanism some funders encourage to transition existing journals toward OA.
The plan has drawn attention from major scholarly publishers, many of whom resist abrupt changes that threaten traditional subscription models. Critics from the publishing sector argue that the transition could disrupt revenue streams that support peer review and editorial services, especially for smaller, non-profit journals and societies. Supporters contend that the existing system is inefficient, keeps costs high for libraries, and restricts access to knowledge that the public has already paid to produce. The discussion around Plan S thus centers on the trade-offs between universal access and the sustainability of diverse publishing ecosystems.
Principles and mechanics
The core requirement of Plan S is straightforward: funded research should be published in OA venues with immediate availability. This can occur through Gold OA, where journals publish articles directly as OA, or Green OA, where papers are deposited in OA repositories with appropriate licenses and timetables. In practice, many publishers respond through transformative arrangements that shift subscription expenditures toward OA publishing while gradually reducing paywalls. See Gold open access and Green open access for the two primary OA pathways, and Transformative agreement for the policy tool many funders favor to facilitate the transition.
A central feature of the Plan S framework is licensing. The typical model calls for a CC-BY license (or a comparable open license) to accompany OA publication, ensuring that the work can be reused, redistributed, and built upon with attribution. This emphasis on permissive licensing is intended to unlock downstream benefits—from text mining to broader education and industry applications. See CC-BY for the licensing terms and Creative Commons for the licensing framework.
Transformative agreements have become a practical vehicle for many institutions. These agreements aim to convert traditional subscription costs into OA publishing support, allowing journals to maintain operations while gradually embracing OA. Advocates say this preserves editorial quality and stability, while critics warn about potential market distortions, excessive price pressures, and reduced bargaining power for libraries. See Transformative agreement for the policy concept and examples in practice.
Implementation and impact
Supporters frame Coalition S’s approach as a way to maximize the value of publicly funded research, reduce unnecessary duplication of efforts, and foster rapid innovation by removing access barriers. They argue that OA accelerates scientific progress, improves education, and benefits industry by increasing the speed at which new ideas can be built upon. In addition, OA is presented as a way to democratize knowledge, enabling researchers, students, and the public to engage with scientific results without paywall obstacles. See Open Access for the broader rationale behind these goals.
Critics, however, point to a range of practical concerns. The most visible is cost: OA publishing can shift budgetary burdens onto funders, universities, or researchers themselves throughArticle Processing Charges (APCs). When APCs escalate or become a barrier for scholars in underfunded fields or regions, the concern is that OA becomes a privilege of well-resourced researchers rather than a universal standard. The phenomenon of paying for OA through APCs is intimately tied to discussions around Gold open access and its economics, including questions about who pays, how prices are set, and whether transformative agreements genuinely reduce total costs over time. See Article Processing Charge and Gold open access for related topics.
Another major point of contention concerns the sustainability of scholarly societies and smaller journals that rely on subscription revenue. Critics warn that a rapid move to OA could undermine the financial models that underwrite peer review, editorial staff, and dissemination in niche fields. Proponents respond that these organizations can adapt through governance changes, partnerships, or revised business models, including OA-focused journals and membership-driven publishing. See Scholarly publishing and Monograph for related dynamics in the scholarly ecosystem.
There is also debate about the potential effects on quality control and publisher behavior. While Plan S proponents emphasize robust peer review and transparent licensing as pillars of credibility, skeptics worry about the risk of “pay-to-publish” dynamics or reduced incentives for high-quality venues that cannot easily convert to OA. In response, Plan S and its supporters stress ongoing evaluation, peer review standards, and credible OA channels as non-negotiable requirements. See Peer review and Open access for related processes and standards.
Global implications form another axis of controversy. Supporters argue that OA funded by public money should be a global public good, benefiting researchers and practitioners in all countries, particularly where access to expensive journals is limited. Critics worry about the potential for uneven implementation, differing national budgets, and the risk that a Europe-centered policy could unduly influence global research infrastructure. See the international conversations around Open science and Global health as broad contexts for these debates.
Controversies and debates
Access vs. cost: The central trade-off is explicit. Immediate OA promises broad access but can raise direct costs through APCs and force institutions to reallocate budgets. The balance between universal access and sustainable publishing is contested, with arguments about whether OA fees displace other essential research activities.
Market structure and publisher power: Critics contend that policy-driven OA could tilt bargaining power toward large publishers or push smaller journals to close or merge. Supporters hold that competition will increase as new OA publishers enter the field and as transformative agreements reallocate resources toward OA.
Academic freedom and policy overreach: Some researchers worry about funder requirements constraining where and how they publish. Advocates for OA emphasize that access is a public good, while critics caution against heavy-handed policy that limits researchers’ choices or the opportunities for cross-disciplinary collaboration.
Global equity: Plan S is framed as a global public benefit, yet implementation varies by country. There is ongoing discussion about how to harmonize OA standards across different funding landscapes so that researchers in all regions can participate on fair terms.
Research quality and integrity: Ensuring rigorous peer review remains central for credible science. While OA itself does not dictate quality, the practical realities of publishing markets under OA pressures invite scrutiny of editorial standards, reviewer workload, and the incentives created by funding rules.