Eleven research funders in Europe announce 'Plan S' to make all scientific works free to read as soon as they are published.
© Nikolay Doychinov/EU2018BGRobert-Jan Smits, the European Commission's special envoy on open access, spearheaded the Plan S initiative.
Research funders from France, the United Kingdom,
the Netherlands and eight other European nations have
unveiled a radical open-access initiative that could change the face of science publishing in two years - and which has instantly provoked protest from publishers.
The 11 agencies, who together spend €7.6 billion (US$8.8 billion) in research grants annually, say they will mandate that, from 2020, the scientists they fund must make resulting papers free to read immediately on publication (see 'Plan S players'). The papers would have a liberal publishing licence that would allow anyone else to download, translate or otherwise reuse the work. "No science should be locked behind paywalls!" says a preamble document that accompanies the pledge, called Plan S, released on 4 September.
"It is a very powerful declaration. It will be contentious and stir up strong feelings," says
Stephen Curry, a structural biologist and open-access advocate at Imperial College London. The policy, he says, appears to mark a "significant shift" in the
open-access publishing movement, which has seen slow progress in its bid to make scientific literature freely available online.
As written, Plan S would bar researchers from publishing in 85% of journals, including influential titles such as
Nature and Science. According to a December 2017
analysis, only around 15% of journals publish work immediately as open access (see 'Publishing models') - financed by charging per-article fees to authors or their funders, negotiating general open-publishing contracts with funders, or through other means. More than one-third of journals still publish papers behind a paywall, and typically permit online release of free-to-read versions only after a delay of at least six months - in compliance with the policies of influential funders such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Comment: Nature bites back: More unforeseen consequences of neonicotinoid pesticides