Article
Version 3
This version is not peer-reviewed
Few Open Access Journals are Plan S Compliant
Version 1
: Received: 15 January 2019 / Approved: 16 January 2019 / Online: 16 January 2019 (10:19:23 CET)
Version 2 : Received: 17 January 2019 / Approved: 17 January 2019 / Online: 17 January 2019 (13:13:14 CET)
Version 3 : Received: 18 January 2019 / Approved: 22 January 2019 / Online: 22 January 2019 (11:39:01 CET)
Version 2 : Received: 17 January 2019 / Approved: 17 January 2019 / Online: 17 January 2019 (13:13:14 CET)
Version 3 : Received: 18 January 2019 / Approved: 22 January 2019 / Online: 22 January 2019 (11:39:01 CET)
A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.
Frantsvåg, J.E.; Strømme, T.E. Few Open Access Journals Are Compliant with Plan S. Publications 2019, 7, 26. Frantsvåg, J.E.; Strømme, T.E. Few Open Access Journals Are Compliant with Plan S. Publications 2019, 7, 26.
Journal reference: Publications 2019, 7, 26
DOI: 10.3390/publications7020026
Abstract
Much of the debate on Plan S seems to concentrate on how to make toll access journals open access, taking for granted that existing open access journals are Plan S compliant. We suspected this was not so, and set out to explore this using DOAJ's journal metadata. We conclude that an overwhelmingly large majority of open access journals are not Plan S compliant, and that it is small HSS publishers not charging APCs that are least compliant and will face major challenges with becoming compliant. Plan S need to give special considerations to smaller publishers and/or non-APC-based journals.
Subject Areas
Plan S; open access journals; APC; technical requirements; publisher size
Copyright: This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Readers' Comments and Ratings (4)
Leave a public commentSend a private comment to the author(s)
Commenter: Egon Willighagen
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Great work! About the XML, I was already discussing with my publisher editor to make the XML available last autumn, and that was before the Plan S suggestion (for the jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/Journal of Cheminformatics). I pinged him again and discuss this Plan S item, see https://github.com/jcheminform/jcheminform/issues/3
You can also use that forum to ask about the number of articles published last year, for which had a field in your spreadsheet, if that would help your overview.
Commenter: Jan Erik Frantsvåg
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am one of the authors
Best,
Jan Erik
Commenter: Muhammad Shahzad Aslam (Click to see Publons profile:
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Usually small journal are indexed with DOAJ so the results will be most likely in a predicted way.
Secondly, there is a suggestion to include geographic data (geodata and geoinformation) as well which will gives you more clear picture
This is an interesting article and the recommendation are reasonable.
Commenter: Jan Erik Frantsvåg
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am one of the authors
For us, using DOAJ was the obvious choice - we knew the data (to some extent) and DOAJ registration is a Plan S requirement.
Country of publishing and language(s) of publishing are part of the metadata. There are numerous analyses that could be performed using these data, we have chosen to do only a few - but the data we have used will be made publicly available for others to perform more analysis.