After the release of their Implementation Guidance on Plan S, the cOAlition S called for feedback, in particular to identify specific areas of the Plan’s implementation that require further clarification. The volume of response is staggering. Statements have poured in from individual and groups — publishers, scholarly societies, disciplinary repositories, scholarly communications platforms, funding agencies, publishing professionals, libraries, library associations, and researchers themselves.
In this article, Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe tries to summarize the main themes she observed in the feedback documents:
- Theme 1: Clear support for the transition to open access and the goals of Plan S.
- Theme 2: Concern that the implementation guidance reflects models that work for STEM but will negatively impact HSS scholars.
- Theme 3: The technical requirements for publication, repository, and other platforms are poorly thought out.
- Theme 4: The predicted effects on small, independent, and society publishers raise concerns for the viability of these publishers.
- Theme 5: Setting a fair and reasonable APC sounds fair and reasonable but it is also likely impossible.
- Theme 6: Scholars and organizations in the Global South object to being told what they want.
- Theme 7: The timelines are not feasible.
Read the full article: The Scholarly kitchen
