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.

Based on the total scholarly article output of Norway, we investigated the coverage and degree of openness according to three bibliographic services 1) Google Scholar, 2) oaDOI by Impact Story and 3) 1findr by 1science. According to Google Scholar, we find that more than 70% of all Norwegian articles are openly available. However, degrees are profoundly lower according to oaDOI and 1findr, respectively 31% and 52%. Varying degrees are mainly caused by different interpretations of openness, with oaDOI being most restrictive. Furthermore, open shares vary considerably by discipline, with the Medcine and Health sciences at the upper and the Humanities at the lower end. We also determined the citation frequencies using Cited-by values as of Google Scholar, applying year and subject normalization. We find a significant citation advantage for open articles. However, this is not the case for all types of openness. In fact, the category Open Access journals was by far lowest cited, indicating that young journals with a declared open access policy still lack recognition.