Plan S: A threat to quality of science?

2019 
A group of European national research funding organizations, with the support of the European Commission and the European Research Council, have announced the launch of cOAlition S (“European funders seek to end reign of paywalled journals,” M. Enserink, In Depth, 7 September 2018, p. [957][1]). According to the plan, after 1 January 2020, scientific publications reporting the results of publicly funded research must be published in compliant open-access journals or on open-access platforms. However, the requirement to publish in an open-access journal does not consider the most important aspect of publishing: selecting a journal that has a strong record of rigorous and high-quality review. This is essential to ensuring that the science is credible. Journal quality is built on a strong track record of publishing significant and impactful manuscripts in a given field. The current Plan S emphasizes only the open-access aspect of the journal, not the quality of the science the journal publishes. For over a century, academic societies have developed scientific journals that provide rigorous scientific review of submitted manuscripts. To do so, societies must recruit leadership (such as editors and editorial board members) and provide fiduciary oversight for journals. These responsibilities require highly trained personnel and are expensive. In turn, these journals provide society members with a venue for publishing their research and advancing the discipline. For societies that self-publish, the proceeds from the journals fund activities such as scientific meetings, which focus on the presentation of current research and exchange of information, and mentoring and financial support of young scientists, which are essential to sustaining a rich scientific community. As members of the International Union of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, the worldwide body for pharmacological societies, we believe using only open-access journals will negatively affect those activities of our professional societies. [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/361/6406/957
    • Correction
    • Source
    • Cite
    • Save
    • Machine Reading By IdeaReader
    0
    References
    7
    Citations
    NaN
    KQI
    []