4 ms·

European funders detail their open-access plan

1 points by Vinnl 8y ago

Vinnl 8y ago
> But structural biologist Lynn Kamerlin, who wrote the open letter, says the guidance still limits researchers’ freedom to publish their work. “It’s a step in right direction,” she says, but “I’m afraid [it gives researchers] a false illusion of choice. … This is something that funders and publishers should negotiate rather than putting researchers in the crosshairs.” The primary goal of Plan S is to transform journals to Open Access, at least in the sense that they allow all research they publish to be freely available at the time of publication somewhere. In other words: the goal is for journals that do not immediately make some articles available to no longer exist. That means that it is, and will always be, fundamentally incompatible with Kamerlin's wishes: for academics to be able to publish in any journals they want, regardless of whether they immediately make their research available. There is also no way that funders would be able to achieve their goal through negotiation - which is why they haven't, in the decades the OA movement has existed now. If they cannot restrict where researchers can publish, they cannot negotiate: all they can do is accept whatever demands the publishers make, because if they don't, they're limiting the ability to publish wherever.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  And maybe as an addendum: arguments like the one Kamerlin is making are always wrapped under the guise of "academic freedom". I feel this is disingenuous. Academic freedom is important because we do not want funders to suppress results of academic research that does not suit their world view. That is not likely to be at risk when funders demand publication in OA venues, however. Rather, when the term is used in this context, academics are not afraid of their research being repressed, but their career progression. It's a legitimate worry. However, it's of a far different nature than academic freedom, and tolerating research behind paywalls is not the only solution.

1 points by Vinnl 8y ago

> But structural biologist Lynn Kamerlin, who wrote the open letter, says the guidance still limits researchers’ freedom to publish their work. “It’s a step in right direction,” she says, but “I’m afraid [it gives researchers] a false illusion of choice. … This is something that funders and publishers should negotiate rather than putting researchers in the crosshairs.” The primary goal of Plan S is to transform journals to Open Access, at least in the sense that they allow all research they publish to be freely available at the time of publication somewhere. In other words: the goal is for journals that do not immediately make some articles available to no longer exist. That means that it is, and will always be, fundamentally incompatible with Kamerlin's wishes: for academics to be able to publish in any journals they want, regardless of whether they immediately make their research available. There is also no way that funders would be able to achieve their goal through negotiation - which is why they haven't, in the decades the OA movement has existed now. If they cannot restrict where researchers can publish, they cannot negotiate: all they can do is accept whatever demands the publishers make, because if they don't, they're limiting the ability to publish wherever.

Vinnl 8y ago
And maybe as an addendum: arguments like the one Kamerlin is making are always wrapped under the guise of "academic freedom". I feel this is disingenuous. Academic freedom is important because we do not want funders to suppress results of academic research that does not suit their world view. That is not likely to be at risk when funders demand publication in OA venues, however. Rather, when the term is used in this context, academics are not afraid of their research being repressed, but their career progression. It's a legitimate worry. However, it's of a far different nature than academic freedom, and tolerating research behind paywalls is not the only solution.