Open-Access Reformers Launch Next Bold Publishing Plan (nature.com) 10
The group behind the radical open-access initiative Plan S has announced its next big plan to shake up research publishing -- and this one could be bolder than the first. From a report: It wants all versions of an article and its associated peer-review reports to be published openly from the outset, without authors paying any fees, and for authors, rather than publishers, to decide when and where to first publish their work. The group of influential funding agencies, called cOAlition S, has over the past five years already caused upheaval in the scholarly publishing world by pressuring more journals to allow immediate open-access publishing. Its new proposal, prepared by a working group of publishing specialists and released on 31 October, puts forward an even broader transformation in the dissemination of research.
It outlines a future "community-based" and "scholar-led" open-research communication system in which publishers are no longer gatekeepers that reject submitted work or determine first publication dates. Instead, authors would decide when and where to publish the initial accounts of their findings, both before and after peer review. Publishers would become service providers, paid to conduct processes such as copy-editing, typesetting and handling manuscript submissions.
[...] If the vision comes to pass, it would mark a revolution in science publishing. Each element has already been endorsed and trialled on a small scale. But as a whole, the proposal "is describing a system that is completely different from today's mainstream forms of scholarly communication," says Andrea Chiarelli, a consultant at Research Consulting in Nottingham, UK. cOAlition S is launching a six-month process, co-led by Research Consulting, to collect feedback from members of the global research community on whether the plan will meet their needs.
It outlines a future "community-based" and "scholar-led" open-research communication system in which publishers are no longer gatekeepers that reject submitted work or determine first publication dates. Instead, authors would decide when and where to publish the initial accounts of their findings, both before and after peer review. Publishers would become service providers, paid to conduct processes such as copy-editing, typesetting and handling manuscript submissions.
[...] If the vision comes to pass, it would mark a revolution in science publishing. Each element has already been endorsed and trialled on a small scale. But as a whole, the proposal "is describing a system that is completely different from today's mainstream forms of scholarly communication," says Andrea Chiarelli, a consultant at Research Consulting in Nottingham, UK. cOAlition S is launching a six-month process, co-led by Research Consulting, to collect feedback from members of the global research community on whether the plan will meet their needs.
It's infuriating (Score:4, Informative)
That doesn't sound plausible (Score:3)
It's one thing to say the author's decide when it's ready to publish, but ti's another to say they get to decide where to publish it. That should be up to the journal. (But perhaps journals shouldn't get exclusive access.)
No gatekeepers = bad science (Score:2)
Gatekeepers have their downsides, but improving the quality of science is an upside.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's only makes them more relevant. When anyone can publish anything how do you sift through the immense volumes that ensue?
This will probably piss off ... (Score:2)
So revolutionary (Score:3)
I don't really understand the "decide where you want to publish thing" (sounds kind of silly), but the idea of no fee scientific paper publishing isn't new or particularly revolutionary. It's fairly normal in fields like computer science.
lol (Score:3)
some intern is going to get the ax
Freedom from journals is what internet is about (Score:1)