The cOAlition S group, known for its open-access initiative Plan S, has proposed a transformative change in research publishing. This new plan advocates for all article versions and peer-review reports to be openly published without fees, allowing authors to control the publication timeline and platforms. The proposal envisions a community-based system where publishers act as service providers rather than gatekeepers. Although it builds on previous open-access movements, the plan raises concerns about potential high article processing charges (APCs) that could limit access for researchers from low-income countries. cOAlition S aims for a more equitable model, emphasizing the need for stakeholder input and a gradual shift towards community-led publishing practices.
| name | description | change | 10-year | driving-force | relevancy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shift to Author-Controlled Publishing | Authors will control publication timing and platforms, reducing publisher gatekeeping. | Moving from publisher-led to author-controlled publishing in research dissemination. | In ten years, authors may routinely publish findings without traditional publisher constraints. | The desire for greater control over research dissemination by the academic community. | 4 |
| Emergence of Community-Based Publishing Models | A proposed shift to community-led, non-profit research publishing systems. | Transitioning from traditional commercial publishing to community-led models for research outputs. | Community-led platforms could dominate research publishing, changing how knowledge is shared. | The need for equitable access and control of research outputs by scholars. | 5 |
| Impact of Open-Access Policies on Global South | Concerns about access to publishing due to high article-processing charges (APCs). | From limited access for researchers in developing regions to more equitable publishing solutions. | In ten years, equitable access models might emerge, empowering researchers globally. | The push for inclusivity and equal opportunity in scholarly publishing. | 4 |
| Rise of Diamond Open Access | Emergence of diamond open access models that do not charge authors or readers. | Shifting from paywalled and APC-based models to completely free publishing systems. | Diamond open access could become a standard, making research freely available to all. | Growing demand for no-fee publishing options to democratize access to research. | 5 |
| Peer-Review Transparency | Proposals for making peer-review reports publicly accessible. | From private peer review to transparent, publicly available review processes. | In ten years, peer review may be fully transparent, revolutionizing trust in published research. | Desire for accountability and quality assurance in research publishing. | 4 |
| Increased Scrutiny of Commercial Publishers | Heightened awareness and critique of commercial publishers and their business models. | Shifting from reliance on commercial publishers to more sustainable, scholar-led alternatives. | In a decade, commercial publishers may face significant challenges as alternatives grow. | The scholarly community’s frustration with high costs and restrictive practices of current systems. | 4 |
| name | description | relevancy |
|---|---|---|
| Loss of Control by Traditional Publishers | The move towards community-led publishing threatens traditional publishers’ gatekeeping role, causing potential disruptions in established publishing norms. | 4 |
| Equity Issues in Open Access Publishing | The rising costs associated with article processing charges (APCs) may exclude researchers from low-income regions, exacerbating inequity in scholarly communications. | 5 |
| Commercial Influence on Research Publication | Heavy lobbying from commercial publishers may undermine the push for community-led and equitable open access publishing models proposed by Plan S. | 4 |
| Resistance to New Publishing Models | Proposed changes to scholarly communication may face opposition from stakeholders comfortable with traditional publishing structures, delaying reform efforts. | 4 |
| Limited Global Adoption of Open Access Models | Not all major funding agencies globally are on board with Plan S, risking inequitable access to research on an international scale. | 3 |
| Overburdening Author Responsibilities | Shift of publishing responsibilities to authors may lead to increased pressures and workloads, impacting research output and quality. | 3 |
| Potential for New Business Models to Fail | New models such as diamond open access may not find sustainable funding mechanisms, risking the viability of open access initiatives. | 4 |
| Inadequate Community Engagement in Publishing Changes | Lack of broader engagement from the scientific community in discussions around publishing reforms may lead to ineffective policies being adopted. | 3 |
| name | description | relevancy |
|---|---|---|
| Community-Controlled Publishing | Authors, rather than publishers, decide when and where to publish their research, fostering a community-driven approach to scholarly communication. | 5 |
| Open Peer Review | Peer-review reports and editorial decisions are published openly, allowing transparency and accountability in the review process. | 4 |
| Alternative Funding Models for Open Access | Exploration of funding models like diamond open access that do not charge authors or readers, aiming for a more equitable publishing landscape. | 4 |
| Decentralized Research Communication | Transitioning from publisher gatekeeping to a system where researchers control the dissemination of their findings. | 5 |
| Support for Preprint Platforms | Encouraging the use of preprint servers and community-led platforms for initial publication of research findings. | 4 |
| Collaboration Among Funders | A coalition of funders working together to unify policies and support open-access initiatives. | 5 |
| Critical Engagement with Publishing Models | Encouraging discussions and feedback from the research community on new publishing proposals and practices. | 3 |
| Awareness of Open Access Policies | Increasing the engagement and awareness of researchers regarding open access policies and their implications. | 3 |
| description | relevancy | src |
|---|---|---|
| A community-based, scholar-led system for open research communication where authors control publishing decisions. | 5 | 02f2ec8eec579967c3b2a336f34ac715 |
| A publishing model where journals operate without charging fees to authors or readers, funded by institutions or organizations. | 4 | 02f2ec8eec579967c3b2a336f34ac715 |
| A system where authors post preprints, and academics manage peer-review processes at no cost to authors. | 4 | 02f2ec8eec579967c3b2a336f34ac715 |
| Platforms where researchers can share early versions of their research before peer review, promoting immediate access. | 4 | 02f2ec8eec579967c3b2a336f34ac715 |
| Contracts between publishers and institutions that aim to facilitate open access without traditional paywalls. | 3 | 02f2ec8eec579967c3b2a336f34ac715 |
| name | description | relevancy |
|---|---|---|
| Open-Access Publishing Transformation | A shift towards community-led and scholar-controlled publishing, reducing publisher gatekeeping and associated fees. | 5 |
| Funding Inequities in Research Publishing | Concerns about high author fees for open-access publishing, particularly impacting researchers from low-income countries. | 5 |
| Alternative Publishing Models | Exploration of publishing models that do not rely on author fees, such as diamond open access. | 4 |
| Pressure on Academic Publishing Norms | The potential controversy surrounding mandates for researchers to publish exclusively on certain platforms or models. | 4 |
| Global Adoption of Open Access Policies | The influence of cOAlition S on global funding agencies to adopt open-access mandates similar to Plan S. | 4 |
| Community Engagement in Publishing Policies | The need for greater involvement of the broader academic community in shaping publishing policies and practices. | 3 |
| Impact of Preprint Servers | Increasing reliance on preprint servers and their role in the research dissemination process as per new proposals. | 4 |