Plan S: the options for publishers

www.highwirepress.com Plan S: the options for publishers February 2019

When we launched HighWire back in 1995, the Internet was transforming the way academic research content was developed, hosted and communicated. It was an exciting time. The rapidly accelerating digital era brought published content to international research communities in an instant. This was access like never before.

Why look back? The very nature of the scholarly sector is about advancement. In 1995, traditionalists claimed that a shift to digital would lead to the end of print journals, and in 10-15 years it did indeed do that for many basic science journals (although not for most medical journals). But while it ended print, it also enabled many new capabilities, such as “publish ahead of print”, supplementary materials and video, and essentially, Open Science itself.

As a digital partner to the global publishing community, our purpose remains to help amplify knowledge and connect the best minds to the most people. As such our relationships with multiple publishers afford us the opportunity to bring the community together to share views and build a better, collective understanding of how we tackle new challenges and opportunities faced by the sector.

Plan S has invigorated the most active debate since the proposal of “ebiomed” and PubMed Central about 20 years ago. How will publishers move with respect to Open Access? What are the main questions and concerns publishers and journals have? And what could genuine solutions be, based on what we currently know?

Bringing the HighWire community together, we were able to explore the options for publishers in how they could deliver against the ten principles as set out by cOAlition S. This paper summarizes those findings as of February 2019

John Sack, Founding Director, HighWire www.highwirepress.com The approach to gathering publisher input

In October 2018, John Sack, HighWire’s founding director, Some proposed solutions have technological implementations, conducted ‘pre-guidance’ (i.e. pre-November guidance and some are policy-based; many are both. At the time of the publication) interviews with 22 individuals from 15 different interviews, there was interest in multiple solutions: people wanted publishing organizations – most all of them HighWire customers. to hedge their bets.

John explored their perspectives and set out to identify common It was recognised that of all the suggestions, there would likely findings, suggested options and further questions that would need be just a few solutions that would tend to predominate especially to be answered. This resulted in a range of 14 initial implementation among small and medium society/not-for-profit publishers. options to consider as a response to Plan S. These are presented on Further in-person group discussion and debate, following APE 2019, the following page in no particular order. was necessary.

On January 29, 2019, HighWire hosted the majority of the original interviewees and others for a workshop in Washington, D.C. bringing together over 40 delegates from 27 not-for-profit publishing organizations. Drawing on the findings of the pre-guidance interviews, the workshop attendees were surveyed to select the options that most warranted discussion. A post- workshop survey was then completed to understand if views had changed. The scoring of the implementation options by participating publishing publishers can be found on page 4: both the ‘pre-guidance’ scores and post-workshop scores. Plan S: the options for publishers

The implementation options considered by publishers

Stay the course, for now A menu of publishing services to layer on top of compliant Several publishers believe Plan S could not only damage their APCs publishing program, but could damage the diversity of high-quality To keep APCs at an ‘acceptable’ level (estimated by some to be journals available to authors who cannot pay APCs if Plan S spread 2,000 Euros based on a 2015 Max Planck Library paper), journals widely. If it doesn’t spread widely, then it would constrain the could offer a menu of additional (presumably optional) services to collaborations that authors funded through Plan S participants authors for added fees. This menu approach would typically be could undertake. Almost every publisher participating in the used in combination with other Plan S options. workshop offers OA articles and/or OA journals, in order to serve their specific authors and communities. Use preprints to comply It is believed that for a preprint to be article-compliant it must: (a) Mirror or partition strategy be the authors’ final version after peer review; (b) must be CC BY. Publishers have sometimes “twigged” journals (Proceedings A and People have previously seen or heard specific comments from Proceedings B e.g.), usually along subject lines. This branching Robert-Jan Smits that both allow and disallow preprints as a path would use the same editorial workflow and team for both journals, to article compliance for authors. but would be along the lines of OA vs non-OA (or Plan S vs. not Plan S). This option has been disallowed by Plan S. Use Green OA to comply Green OA is not specifically covered in the Principles for Plan S Transparent hybrid subscription pricing since embargoes are precluded. However, if Plan S authors Small and medium societies might persuade Plan S funders that a deposit their “author accepted manuscript” (i.e. final version fully-transparent hybrid model (such as used by The Royal Society after peer review comments) in an institutional or other repository or IOP) could be allowed to make a hybrid journal compliant. It had immediately on publication (no embargo) and with a CC BY been reported but not confirmed that this transparency might be a license could the article be considered compliant? requirement for hybrid journals to be deemed compliant for a fixed number of years, under a Transformative Agreement”. Deposit to an existing compliant server or repository Plan S specifically mentions “compliant servers”. Once the criteria Transparent APC pricing for “compliant server” are documented, and/or such compliant Transparent APC pricing may be necessary to get an exception servers are named, it would be possible for publishers to deploy made to a potential APC cap and in Transformative Agreements. automated workflow to place appropriate versions of articles in the repositories. The articles would (presumably) be copied to this server (as they are with other repositories) upon publication: Transformative Agreement the deposited version may or may not appear on the journal’s Transformative Aggreements are one of several “move gradually own website, though it would be most typical for it to appear in toward journal compliance” options, and enables a period of both places. compliance for hybrid journals. A journal publishes a plan with a definitive end date by which the journal will be “flipped” to OA.

Read and publish agreements Read and Publish (and the complementary Publish and Read) are two approaches that larger publishers are using to move consortia (and countries) towards a model in which a consortium pays for a package (usually many many journals) that includes OA publishing for all the authors in that consortium, thus making all the publications free for everyone to read. www.highwirepress.com

Create a new compliant server or repository Plan S specifically mentions “compliant servers”. Once the criteria for “compliant server” are documented, it would be possible to create such a server to hold articles that publishers and journals wish to make compliant. The articles would (presumably) be copied to this server (as they are with other repositories) upon publication.

Transfer to an OA journal for Plan S authors Many societies now have OA ‘transfer’ journals (previously referred to as ‘cascade’ journals) that allow them to retain articles not accepted for publication in a flagship journal. Plan S authors could be offered a transfer to a publisher’s OA journal in a similar way – possibly this could be after acceptance in the submitted-to journal.

Publish Ahead of Print with OA Final Author Accepted Manuscript Journals wonder if publishing an author’s final accepted manuscript would be compliant with Plan S as long as (1) there is no embargo, (2) the author version was permanently available and open, and (3) the article was published with a CC BY license. We talked with several society-based publishers who already do this with no subscription decline.

Flip the journal(s) from subscription to full OA Some publishers see this as the correct future-oriented option. All other options seem to these publishers to be defensive, holding onto the past. Journal ‘flips’ have occurred, but the majority of them have been in cases of a new journal that has not yet gained many subscribers. Fewer examples exist among well-established society titles. But a few do! Plan S: the options for publishers

Implementation options - the publishers’ view Post October interviews Post January workshop

Stay the course, for now Mirror or partition strategy

22% 14% 1. No way we will take this route 1. No way we will take this route 26% 30%

53% 34% 2. This is unlikely 2. This is unlikely 26% 30%

9% 41% 3. This is under consideration 3. This is under consideration 17% 22%

9% 3% 4. One of the good possibilities 4. One of the good possibilities 4% 9%

6% 6% 5. Seems very likely 5. Seems very likely 13% 9%

0% 0% 6. This is the current plan/direction 6. This is the current plan/direction 13% 0%

Transparent hybrid subscription pricing Transparent APC pricing

7% 0% 1. No way we will take this route 1. No way we will take this route 13% 9%

30% 23% 2. This is unlikely 2. This is unlikely 39% 26%

40% 42% 3. This is under consideration 3. This is under consideration 26% 35%

10% 13% 4. One of the good possibilities 4. One of the good possibilities 9% 13%

10% 13% 5. Seems very likely 5. Seems very likely 13% 13%

3% 10% 6. This is the current plan/direction 6. This is the current plan/direction 0% 4%

Transformative Agreement Read and publish agreements

3% 0% 1. No way we will take this route 1. No way we will take this route 4% 10%

38% 37% 2. This is unlikely 2. This is unlikely 52% 52%

45% 37% 3. This is under consideration 3. This is under consideration 13% 24%

7% 17% 4. One of the good possibilities 4. One of the good possibilities 22% 5%

3% 0% 5. Seems very likely 5. Seems very likely 9% 10%

3% 10% 6. This is the current plan/direction 6. This is the current plan/direction 0% 0% www.highwirepress.com

Implementation options - the publishers’ view Post October interviews Post January workshop

A menu of publishing services to layer on top of compliant APCs Use preprints to comply

3% 3% 1. No way we will take this route 1. No way we will take this route 4% 13%

33% 35% 2. This is unlikely 2. This is unlikely 43% 35%

50% 32% 3. This is under consideration 3. This is under consideration 35% 35%

13% 19% 4. One of the good possibilities 4. One of the good possibilities 13% 13%

0% 10% 5. Seems very likely 5. Seems very likely 4% 4%

0% 0% 6. This is the current plan/direction 6. This is the current plan/direction 0% 0%

Use Green OA to comply Deposit to an existing compliant server or repository

0% 7% 1. No way we will take this route 1. No way we will take this route 0% 4%

12% 7% 2. This is unlikely 2. This is unlikely 17% 17%

41% 50% 3. This is under consideration 3. This is under consideration 25% 35%

26% 20% 4. One of the good possibilities 4. One of the good possibilities 21% 22%

12% 13% 5. Seems very likely 5. Seems very likely 33% 22%

12% 3% 6. This is the current plan/direction 6. This is the current plan/direction 4.17% 0%

Create a new compliant server or repository Transfer to an OA journal for Plan S authors

21% 10% 1. No way we will take this route 1. No way we will take this route 50% 9%

61% 30% 2. This is unlikely 2. This is unlikely 45% 35%

14% 36% 3. This is under consideration 3. This is under consideration 5% 17%

4% 10% 4. One of the good possibilities 4. One of the good possibilities 0% 26%

0% 3% 5. Seems very likely 5. Seems very likely 0% 13%

0% 10% 6. This is the current plan/direction 6. This is the current plan/direction 0% 0% Plan S: the options for publishers

Implementation options - the publishers’ view Post October interviews Post January workshop

Publish Ahead of Print with OA Final Author Accepted Manuscript Flip the journal(s) from subscription to full OA

3% 16% 1. No way we will take this route 1. No way we will take this route 4% 18%

17% 35% 2. This is unlikely 2. This is unlikely 30% 50%

45% 29% 3. This is under consideration 3. This is under consideration 26% 23%

17% 13% 4. One of the good possibilities 4. One of the good possibilities 13% 9%

7% 3% 5. Seems very likely 5. Seems very likely 22% 0%

10% 3% 6. This is the current plan/direction 6. This is the current plan/direction 4% 0%

Average preference scores Post October interviews Post January workshop

Stay the course, for now Mirror or partition strategy Transparent hybrid subscription pricing

2.25 2.55 2.97

2.91 2.35 2.7

Transparent APC pricing Transformative Agreement Read and publish agreements

3.45 2.79 3.1

3.09 2.78 2.52

A menu of publishing services to layer on Use preprints to comply Use Green OA to comply top of compliant APCs

2.73 2.97 3.7

2.7 2.61 3.83

Deposit to an existing compliant server Create a new compliant server or repository Transfer to an OA journal for Plan S authors or repository

3.37 2 2.97

3.39 1.55 3

Publish Ahead of Print with OA Final Author Flip the journal(s) from subscription Accepted Manuscript to full OA

3.38 2.61

3.3 2.23 Plan S: the options for publishers

Publishers most preferred options

This paper will explore the three It is worth noting that “popularity” of an option is no guarantee that it is right for a specific publishing organization. For example, preferred options and the option we learned that in one particular large STEM discipline, most that had the biggest positive swing authors remain distrustful of OA, seeing it as “vanity publishing”. following the workshop: A society whose journals represent this field might need a different solution from a society with the opposite opinion of OA • Use Green OA to comply (e.g.,biomedical informatics) One might “stay the course” for now, while the other might “flip the journals”. In other words, “your • Deposit to an existing compliant mileage may vary”. Each publisher will develop its own strategies server or repository and prioritize the needs of its communities and constituents accordingly as details on Plan S emerge.

• Post OA final author Backgrond: Plan S compliance accepted manuscript Before examining the top four favoured implementation options resulting from the workshop, article compliance for authors as • Stay the Course, for Now defined in the cOAlition S Implementation Guidance is set out in the table below; the first column defines publishing in compliant journals, the second in compliant repositories, and the third defines Plan S’ November Implementation Guidance approach to acceptable hybrid journals. For each of the four implementation options, we refer to these three columns when describing how compliance will be achieved.

Open Access journals Deposition of scholarly articles in Transformative agreements or Open Access platforms Open Access repositories

Authors publish in a Plan S compliant Immediately upon publication, authors Authors publish Open Access with Open Access journal or on a Plan S deposit the final published version of a a CC BY license in a subscription compliant Open Access platform with scholarly publication (Version of journal that is covered by a a CC BY license. Record (VoR)) or an Author’s Accepted transformative agreement that has a Manuscript (AAM), in a Plan S clear and time-specified commitment compliant repository. The document is to a full Open Access transition. made available immediately open access (with no embargo) under a CC BY license.

Note that the Workshop participants’ top-ranked options did not include Transformative Agreements (the third column above). This option ranked seventh out of fourteen options, and no publishers were committed to this option though seven of them felt it was a “good possibility” or “very likely”. This largely is due to the difficulty of small and medium-sized non-profit publishers -- with typically 1-10 journals each -- seeing how they can get “a seat at the table” to negotiate these agreements. Perhaps with a path forward to accomplish that, more would be interested in this option. www.highwirepress.com

Use Green OA to comply

Overview Green OA is often associated with an embargo period such as Twenty years ago when PubMed Central was introduced, this was with repository deposits. So Green OA is not specifically covered seen as a problem. But the feeling is now that authors are more in the Principles for Plan S since embargoes are precluded. savvy about funder deposit requirements and the paths to However, if Plan S authors were allowed to deposit their “author compliance. This could leave open the possibility of a service accepted manuscript” (AAM; i.e., accepted version after peer being developed specifically to assist authors in compliance. review comments were addressed) or “version of record” (VOR) Indeed, it is possible that scholarly content ‘network’ services -- in an institutional or other repository immediately on publication e.g., ResearchGate -- which are seen by publishers as illegal or with no embargo on free access and with a CC BY license it quasi-legal could stake a claim to be compliant repositories and appears the article will be considered compliant. attract author document deposits or simply sweep them up with their CC BY licenses.

Consideration/Discussion This option was also of interest to publishers who see that Plan S This implementation option was ranked highest by workshop will attempt to drive down the cost of publishing (by limiting or attendees both in the pre-guidance interview stage (October 2018) formally capping APCs) and that it would be unwise to take on and post-workshop (January 2019); its overall score moved up with additional services that raise cost now. many more publishers indicating it “seems very likely” to be part of their plan. Publishers aligning with this option felt that the Implementation Guidelines were still a “moving target”, that it was difficult to build Green OA with no embargo can be a strategy for author-driven services on such, and that this was an appropriate course for now: compliance – indeed, green OA is sometimes referred to as As one said, “that middle box looks good to me”. “self-archiving” – or can be provided directly by the publisher (see especially the next option). A number of publishers already allow authors to deposit immediately in some types of repositories such Compliance approach with Plan S as institutional or subject ones (this information should be on the This method falls squarely in the “middle approach” to article journal’s site, and also in the SHERPA/RoMEO publisher copyright compliance from the Implementation Guidance. policies & self-archiving database (www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo). However, authors still report confusion on what they are allowed The Implementation Guidance suggests but does not state, to do and embargoes – which cause authors to defer action – that repositories used by authors would need to be listed in exacerbate the problem. With embargoes removed, author OpenDOAR. However, the actual text says that Coalition S will deposits might see greater uptake. work with OpenDOAR “to establish mechanisms for identifying and signalling whether ... repositories ... are in compliance with Green OA would not usually have any APCs paid, so typically the cOAlition S requirements”. publishers taking this route to compliance would possibly forgo APCs for papers made compliant in this manner. But some Coalition S Implementation Guidance includes a “request that publishers do require fees for repository deposit and for CC BY, so publishers facilitate deposit”. Note that this is the focus of the this is not impossible. However, it is clear that a Plan S funded next option. author would not be able to pay such fees from Plan S funds Note that publishers would likely determine which deposit – the Journals could enable this option selectively for funders that require AAM or the VOR – is permitted, and enter that in the SHERPA it. This could be attractive especially to journals that already allow database for author information. ‘self archiving’, but had not previously allowed CC BY and might extend this option only for funders requiring it. With this option, Note that with this method of repository deposit, the journal is journals leave the compliance burden on the authors. not compliant, but the article is. Plan S: the options for publishers Deposit to an existing compliant server or repository

Questions to be resolved Overview Does the repository itself need to be declared ‘compliant’, or Plan S specifically mentions “compliant servers”. Once the criteria does it just need to meet certain public criteria? While some for “compliant server” are documented, and/or such compliant public repositories such as PMC and EuroPMC will surely be vetted servers are named, it would be possible for publishers to deploy by OpenDOAR (v2.sherpa.ac.uk/opendoar), many institutional automated workflow to place appropriate versions of articles in repositories will not be. Some representatives of these repositories the repositories. The articles would (presumably) be copied to this have provided feedback to Plan S Implementation Guidance that server (as they are with other repositories) upon publication: the the requirements (e.g., automated ingest, and especially full text deposited version may or may not appear on the journal’s own XML) are too burdensome and asked that this be reconsidered. website, though it would be most typical for it to appear in both places. The server would not be a journal, but a repository. There was a question (still to be researched) whether authors People have no trouble today with the distinction and are familiar depositing AAMs and publishers depositing VORs of the same with it through institutional and subject repositories (such as PMC). article (eventually) to PMC would cause any problems. There This is a publisher-driven option. could also be different licenses for different versions.

Consideration/Discussion This was the second-highest ranked option among the publishers The HighWire view at the Workshop, and moved up slightly in the rankings, from If authors are self-archiving, technical requirements can fourth-ranked pre-guidance to second-ranked in January. be very low, whereas if publishing platforms are facilitating the deposits to a compliant repository, clear rules for authors The key differentiator between the Green OA option and this option would be required on which articles to deposit and how to is publisher automation and workflow facilitation on behalf of the tag funding agencies. Even if authors self-archive, the authors. In this option, the publisher ensures the deposit happens, publisher could offer guidance around journal policies, and and that the right version is deposited at the right time with the ideally, tailor this to funder requirements, and provided correct license. through an alert upon publication. Many biomedical publishers are familiar with this approach from If articles are posted to a repository, then usage of the their integration with PubMed Central years ago, and assume articles will be split. Hosting platforms should provide an that PMC and EuroPMC would be considered “compliant servers”. option to import usage data from external repositories, So they could use these as repositories. So the technical workflow such as PMC or institutional repositories, to give a complete has been long established, at least with a particular (likely Plan-S- picture of article usage. compliant) repository.

This model of compliance could be used with only Plan S funded articles, though with the additional burden for authors and publishers of accurately tracking funders through the workflow. Some publishers found this to be problematic for PMC workflows years ago, especially because of author challenges in accurately identifying grant sources.

Note that publishers would determine whether the facilitated deposit is of the AAM or the VOR. www.highwirepress.com Post OA final author accepted manuscript

Compliance approach with Plan S Overview This compliance method falls squarely in the “middle approach” We have been told by a publisher (who has verified this in writing to article compliance from the Implementation Guidance. with Robert-Jan Smits) that publishing the authors’ final accepted manuscript would be compliant with Plan S as long as (1) there is Coalition S Implementation Guidance includes a “request that no embargo, (2) the author version was permanently available publishers facilitate deposit”, and this option actions that request and open, and (3) the article was published with a CC BY license. (compared to the previously-discussed Green OA option) Most publishers have not considered this because of the Note that with this method of repository deposit, the journal is not assumption that free versions of many articles would cause likely compliant, but the article likely is. significant subscription loss. However, four HighWire society-based publishers now publish author manuscripts upon acceptance, and make them freely accessible. Three of these publishers (with Questions to be resolved eight journals among them) make these open versions persistently Similar questions to the first option around Green OA need to available even after the final version is published in an issue. be answered. Two have been doing this for nearly twenty years and do not believe this practice has contributed to subscription decline. And these publishers have been doing this for all original research, not just for certain funders. The HighWire view Let us look at the specifics of the four publishers’ models, since Closely related to the Green OA option, a clear tagging three are quite different: or deposition directive to indicate which articles should be deposited, is key. More complex embargo enforcement ASBMB and ASPET publishers are nearly identical: policies in the target repositories might be needed, since • AAM is the “publish ahead of print” version, on the journal Plan S articles would require no embargo but other articles web site might still be embargoed for a period of time. Author • AAM is immediately published upon acceptance notification letters to describe deposits made, could let • AAM is freely available, permanently authors know that they have complied with Plan S; • AAM is the author’s final accepted version, in PDF form avoiding confusion. • AAM does not now carry the CC BY license, or full-text XML

Requirements to import external usage stats become One interesting variation between these two is how the important here and consideration should be given for AAM looks: how to handle articles deposited as AAM but are withdrawn • For ASBMB, the AAM is two-column, figures-integrated-into-text, by authors and not published in final form. There remains like a published article, and might typically be 10 pages a question on what should happen to the AAM in the • For ASPET, the AAM is a ‘typescript-style’ version, and might repository. typically be 25+ pages

The other two publishers are different from the above: • ASNR deposits the AAM only with PMC, and does not post it on the journal site • GSA (Genetics Society of America) “unfrees” the AAM when the final published (issue) version is released for subscribers All of the above publishers use this model for all of their original research articles. None now offer a CC BY license option. All of these publishers also offer a hybrid OA option. Plan S: the options for publishers

Consideration/Discussion The ranking of this option – third in our list of 14 options – did not The HighWire view change from pre-guidance to post-workshop. However, somewhat Under these circumstances, the platform provider will be more publishers are now considering this option as a ‘very likely’. required to host the AAM as a separate, permanently accessible version of articles and must be able to offer In some ways this option is like the previous one (publisher more complex access control options. There are several deposit of AAM to a repository) except the journal could act as considerations, but at a minimum, different levels of its own ‘repository’. access control will be required for different versions of articles. It would also be possible for publishers to take this approach only for articles that must be Plan S compliant, which would presumably It’s vital that usage reporting aggregates the usage of mitigate concerns about subscription loss in most cases (current multiple versions. Coordination with search engines, such Plan S proportion of articles ranges from 3-15% for the above as Google Scholar, and wider aggregators will also be publishers, though one journal for one publisher is around 40%). required so that multiple accessible versions of the However, an implementation that is limited by funder would not articles do not dilute SEO impact. allow journal compliance. If AAMs are published as “publish ahead of print” versions, a platform should provide guidance on how Compliance approach with Plan S articles should be cited. For journals that publish all of their original research using this method, this is the first of our publisher-preferred options that offer the possibility of journal compliance rather than only article compliance. So, publishers implementing this model could actually be in any of the three columns:

In order for the journal to be compliant with this model, we believe (subject to clarification) that all original research articles would need to be published through this model (including CC BY), and it is implied that the journal would need to be accepted into the DOAJ (doaj.org). But the Implementation Guidance only states explicitly that Coalition S will “work with the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) … to establish mechanisms for identifying and signalling whether journals/platforms … are in compliance with the cOAlition S requirements”. (HighWire is in contact with DOAJ on how to facilitate this when the requirements are clear.)

Questions to be resolved The key questions here are whether these statements are true: • a journal could be compliant if all of its original research articles are published as AAM on-site, OA (with CC BY) and/or: • articles could be compliant if they are published by the journal as AAM on-site OA with CC BY for Plan-S-funded articles. www.highwirepress.com

Stay the course, for now

Overview Originally, pre-Implementation-Guidance, several publishers felt Alternatively, nearly every publisher in the workshop offers that Plan S would not only damage their publishing program, but hybrid OA publishing, and wonders if there is the possibility that would damage the diversity of high-quality journals available to a paper with some funding from a Plan S signatory could be authors who could not pay APCs if Plan S spread widely. And if it published OA in its journal (necessarily enabling the middle column didn’t spread widely, then it would constrain the collaborations as well) but that Plan S funders would not pay the APC for that that authors funded through Plan S participants could undertake. publication. Could another author, or other funds, be used?

However, post-Workshop, there was a decided shift that “Stay on course, for now” was a responsible option because the rules and Questions to be resolved impacts were not vetted or well-enough thought through at this An essential question for journals electing this option yet wishing particular time thought through. Publishers preferred a neutral to be open to Plan S authors is whether Plan S explicitly precludes term for this option, meaning that authors would have the same publishing in hybrid journals. It does not appear to do so in the options that they had now, and that the publisher would not Implementation Guidance. Its Implementation Guidance ‘merely’ specifically engage at this time in new models. So we include this says that its funds will not support such journals. Principle 9, option – even though it is not an implementation option per se – in however, states that “The ‘hybrid’ model of publishing is not our list of top options under consideration by publishers at this time. compliant with the above [8] principles” and this must be taken into account.

Consideration/Discussion Further questions arose having to do with the prevalent multi-author cases, and multi-funder cases: This option is included because its ranking shifted dramatically If a paper had non-Plan-S sources of APC funds, could an APC – up seven places – from pre-guidance (where it was ranked 13 out be paid through those means, perhaps by an author’s institution, of 14 options) to post-APE and post-workshop (where it was ranked or by a non-Plan-S-funded author? If a research project reported 6 out of 14). Now a third of respondents consider it “one of the good in a paper had any Plan S source of funds, was it required that that possibilities”, “very likely” or “current plan”. It should also be noted article be compliant? (It would appear so.) that this option can be the ‘default’ option while a society/journal deliberates on all the other options and seeks member, author, reader and business-consultant input on far more involved options such as “Transformative Agreements” and “Flipping the Journals to OA”. So it should not be assumed that journals adopting this option for now are opposed to Plan S or to OA. The HighWire view From a technology perspective, this option requires the Generally, the Business As Usual option is seen as a safe place least development, for now. Publishers should keep in to be while the specifics are still soft, or the consequences mind they may incur more risk if they choose not to (whether for research, or publishing globally, or for a society or implement direct support for Plan S “for now” but then a journal) are not fully thought out. This option might also be find it necessary to implement direct support under time particularly attractive to journals who see that the current scope pressure “later”. Waiting now may mean a tight deadline of Plan S among their published output is only in the 2-5% range. is imposed later.

On this basis, even if a publisher chooses to do nothing at Compliance approach with Plan S this time they should still make sure that proper funder While this option is specifically not compliant at the journal level, tagging is in place now. This will facilitate deposition of authors may still be able to comply via the middle column if back data if direct support is added “later”. publisher rules (such as posting AAM or VOR, and CC BY) permit it. Plan S: the options for publishers

Participating publishers

We would like to thank the following Publishers who contributed to the discussions. HighWire is responsible for the summarization and the views expressed in this white paper. Each publisher will develop its own strategies and prioritize the needs of its communities and constituents accordingly as details on Plan S emerge.

American Association for the American Society of Neuroradiology Advancement of Science

American Academy of Neurology American Society of Plant Biologists

American Academy of Pediatrics BMJ Publishing Group Limited

American Association for Company of Biologists Cancer Research

American Association for Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press Clinical Chemistry

American Association EMBO Press of Immunologists

American Chemical Society Endocrine Society

American College of Cardiology Genetics Society of America

American Diabetes Association Joule Inc., A CMA Company

American Society for Biochemistry Proceedings of the National and Molecular Biology Academy of Sciences

American Society for Microbiology Rockefeller University Press

American Society for Pharmacology Society for Industrial and & Experimental Therapeutics Applied Mathematics

American Society of Civil Engineers Society for Neuroscience

American Society of Nephrology www.highwirepress.com

Useful references

While there are many, many pages Smits presentation: posted about Plan S on the web - https://youtu.be/xDcv_xWnL5s from policy statements to spoken presentations from Plan S executives to responses from society leaders and researchers - there are a few that give direct insight into recent Plan S leadership thinking. I highlight specifically the mid-January Academic Publishing Europe (APE) presentations and panels which Smits presentation Q&A: https://youtu.be/7TYF36UXxF8 included Robert-Jan Smits.

These are now available on video courtesy of Arnoud and Edwin deKemp.

Discussion Plan S and OA2020 (Smits on a panel): https://youtu.be/NMTVMQaHIPU Connecting the best minds to the most people

HighWire is the principal digital partner for the global publishing community. Our technology provides the nexus where knowledge is collected, certified, stored and shared. By simplifying the publishing process, we widen the reach, deepen the impact and accelerate the exchange of ideas. Whether you choose from our suite of modular applications or our entire intelligent platform, we help all publishers to create the best digital experiences and reach the most people.

Find out how we help get Knowledge Amplified

www.highwirepress.com [email protected]