The evolution of open access: A flexible approach to research publishing
A bold vision for open access research
Seven years ago, Coalition S set out on a mission to revolutionize the world of research publishing. Their ambitious Plan S aimed to make all funded research freely accessible by 2021, without the barriers of subscriptions or paywalls. This declaration, backed by a powerful consortium of scientific organizations and funders, was a game-changer.
But here's where it gets controversial... Coalition S's new five-year strategy takes a step back from its original, highly ambitious goal. Instead, it adopts a more flexible approach, embracing a range of open access models and focusing on monitoring investment, fairness, and sustainability.
While Coalition S didn't meet its 2021 target, the shift towards open access publishing is undeniable. Between 2014 and 2024, the share of papers published with immediate, unrestricted access (known as "gold" open access) increased significantly. According to the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers, this share grew by an impressive 26% to 40%.
Gold open access is the dominant model, with over 1.5 million articles freely available to read. However, this comes at a cost - authors, institutions, or research funders must pay article processing charges (APCs) to cover publishing expenses.
Other open access models include "green" or "self-archiving" open access, where authors deposit their manuscripts in institutional repositories or subject-based archives. These are freely available but may not be the final, formatted version published by the journal. "Bronzerepresents" publications that are free to read on the publisher's website but have limited access or unclear licensing terms.
Hybrid journals offer a mix of traditional subscription fees and open access options, where authors can pay an APC to make individual articles freely available. Diamond or platinum journals, on the other hand, provide immediate open access without charging authors, with publishing costs often covered by universities, societies, or government funding.
Lidia Borrell-Damián, chair of Coalition S's executive steering group, highlights the impact of Plan S. An independent study confirms that it has put open access on policymakers' agendas and brought publishers to the negotiating table. Borrell-Damián emphasizes the potential game-changer that is the rights retention strategy, which has led to the development of institutional rights retention policies. She also notes the contribution to the momentum around diamond OA and the awareness raised about the inequities of article-based charging models.
However, Borrell-Damián acknowledges the complexities of the publishing environment, including the rise of APCs, which can be prohibitively expensive for some researchers, and the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, raising concerns about research integrity.
Coalition S's five-year plan focuses on three key priorities: strengthening the foundations of the open access environment, supporting digital infrastructure through coordinated investment, and exploring financially sustainable systems.
Ginny Barbour, a medical scientist and co-chair of the Declaration on Research Assessment, believes Coalition S has made a positive impact. She highlights the timing of Plan S, which came at a moment when the momentum for open access was waning. Through its convening power and policy development, Coalition S helped change the narrative around open access, emphasizing its complexity and the need for integration with other initiatives, such as open science and research assessment.
Lynn Kamerlin, a computational biophysicist, agrees that Coalition S's priorities address some of the equity issues created by previous strategies. She welcomes the focus on finding solutions, especially regarding the major issue of cost. However, Kamerlin expresses concern about the strategy's potential shift towards funders taking more control of the publication process, which she believes could jeopardize the independent dissemination of knowledge and quality control through peer evaluation.
Richard Sever, assistant director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press and co-founder of the preprint server bioRxiv, offers a different perspective. He suggests that Plan S has evolved from a "fairly specific" to a "rather vague" strategy. Originally focused on journals and transformative agreements, Plan S has now shifted its focus to preprints, alternative peer review models, and diamond open access. Sever notes that this change may be due to Plan S funneling publishing towards APCs, a model that rewards high-volume commercial publishing, which many proponents of open access object to.
So, what's your take on Coalition S's new strategy? Do you think it's a step in the right direction, or has it strayed from its original vision? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
