Plan SEdit
Plan S is an open-access policy initiative designed to reform how research funded by public or public-like sources is published. Launched in 2018 by a coalition of European funders operating under cOAlition S, it seeks to ensure that scholarly outputs arising from taxpayer-backed research become openly and immediately available to the public, practitioners, and researchers worldwide. The core demand is straightforward: when research is funded with public money, the results should be accessible without paywalls, typically under permissive licenses that allow broad reuse. The policy has evolved through several iterations, expanding its scope and tightening its requirements in response to shifting technological and market realities in scholarly publishing. Plan S cOAlition S open access CC BY transformative agreement read-and-publish APC hybrid open access academic publishing
Plan S: goals and mechanics
Immediate openness and reuse rights: Plan S requires that funded research be published in venues that provide immediate open access, with no embargo periods. This means articles become accessible at the moment of publication rather than after a delay. The preferred licensing model is CC BY, which permits broad reuse in education, industry, and government applications. CC BY open access
Routes to compliance: Plan S accepts two main pathways. Authors can publish in gold open-access journals or platforms that provide immediate OA, or they can utilize green OA routes, which involve depositing a version of the manuscript in an accessible repository. The emphasis is on timely access and clear licensing rather than on a single publishing channel. open access green open access gold open access
Transformation and read-and-publish: A major point of discussion has been the role of transformative agreements (often described as read-and-publish deals) that shift existing subscriptions toward OA publishing and licensing. While these agreements can reduce the per-article cost of OA and align publishers with OA goals, they have been controversial for how they affect pricing, bargaining power, and the structure of scholarly markets. transformative agreement read-and-publish APC
Limits on traditional paywalls and hybrid journals: Plan S has challenged traditional subscription models and raised questions about hybrid journals that offer both subscription access and occasional OA. Critics warn that hybrids, if not properly transitioned, can slow full OA; proponents see hybrids as a transitional mechanism that pressures publishers to move toward OA while preserving stable revenue during a transition. hybrid open access academic publishing
Financing and cost considerations: Implementing Plan S requires substantial funding commitments from institutions and funders to support OA publishing costs, licensing, and infrastructure for repositories. Proponents argue that OA reduces long-run costs by eliminating paywalls and broadening the impact and reuse of research; critics warn that APCs and transitional deals can shift costs in ways that disadvantage smaller institutions or researchers without strong grant support. APC open access policy research funding
Implementation and scope
Geographic and institutional reach: The initial framework drew from a European base, with participation expanding over time to include other funders and institutions that align with similar open-access principles. The aim is to encourage a broader, global shift toward OA while maintaining high standards for scholarly quality and reproducibility. European Union global science policy academic publishing
Quality, peer review, and standards: Plan S seeks to preserve rigorous peer review and scholarly integrity while removing financial barriers to access. Some supporters argue that OA can coexist with high quality, and that competition among publishers—both nonprofit and for-profit—should reward good science and wise allocation of public funds. Critics worry about potential pressure on quality control, especially if price controls or licensing terms become misaligned with incentives for rigorous review. peer review academic publishing quality standards
Controversies and debates
Academic freedom and publishing choices: A central critique is that mandated OA can constrain researchers’ freedom to publish where they choose, particularly in fields with well-established journals that operate under subscription models. Proponents counter that researchers and their funders retain the right to publish in venues that meet OA requirements, while publishers and universities are encouraged to adapt to a more transparent, accessible system. The outcome is framed as a competition for best venues rather than coercion. academic freedom scholarly communication
Economic impact on institutions and publishers: The shift to OA entails new cost structures, including APCs and the renegotiation of licenses. Critics warn that APCs may rise or be unevenly distributed, placing a heavier burden on libraries and institutions with tighter budgets. Supporters contend OA reduces total costs by widening access, enabling faster dissemination of results, and lowering waste in duplicative dissemination. The debate often centers on who pays and how much; some argue for more public funding or alternative funding models to avoid price inflation. APC transformative agreement academic publishing
Global equity and access: There are concerns that Plan S-like policies could unintentionally disadvantage researchers in less affluent institutions or countries, who might face higher relative costs or fewer opportunities to publish in high-prestige OA venues. Proponents emphasize that broader OA benefits learners, practitioners, and policymakers worldwide, while supporters of market-driven reform argue for scalable, locally appropriate funding mechanisms and capacity-building to ensure broader participation. global health and science policy open access global South
Left-leaning critiques and rebuttals: Critics from various backgrounds sometimes frame OA mandates as either cost-driven or politically motivated. From a pragmatic, market-informed vantage point, the core argument is that public investments should yield accessible knowledge, but that the path there should be navigated with attention to sustainability, competition, and the ability of researchers to publish in venues that maintain quality and independence. Advocates argue that the real goal is better dissemination of science and more robust return on public investments, while opponents warn against overreach that could nudge publishers toward higher profits under the banner of “open.” In this frame, criticisms that portray OA as a step toward centralized control often ignore the practical benefits of wider access and faster innovation. open science academic publishing DORA
Widespread adoption and practical outcomes: As Plan S has influenced funding policies beyond its original cadre, universities and research centers have experimented with financing models, institutional repositories, and licensing terms to align with OA principles. The experience illustrates a broader tension between control—over who can publish, how licenses are used, and how costs are allocated—and the desire to accelerate knowledge diffusion for economic growth, public health, and national competitiveness. institutional repository economic policy public policy