De Gruyter Position on Plan S

peter.suber's bookmarks 2021-01-05

Summary:

[Undated] "Plan S has little to no regard for the Humanities and Social Sciences. The creators of Plan S have used the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine) research ecosystem as their main model and have presented a “one size fits all” approach with a focus on journals – which are key for STEM – and have practically ignored monographs – which are of greater importance in HSS. A single, unified approach to delivering open access across the full spectrum of academic publishing is unfeasible. A plan driven by payments from direct grants is incompatible with disciplines and sub-fields where there is no direct grant funding. Funding for the humanities, unlike funding for much of STEM, is not usually centralized, and often comes from educational institutions directly, rather than well-endowed foundations. Furthermore, unlike STEM, many disciplines also have a more national focus, and available funding is therefore even more difficult to identify and secure. It is not possible for the vast majority of HSS (Humanities and Social Science) journals to simply ‘flip’ to APC-based open access. Many serve relatively small research communities and combine low publication volumes with high rejection rates. They will not be able to provide the same level of service to their communities on the basis of a small number of capped APCs...."

Link:

https://www.degruyter.com/page/2087?language=en

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » peter.suber's bookmarks

Tags:

oa.plan_s oa.de_gruyter oa.objections oa.debates oa.fees oa.humanities oa.hybrid oa.academic_freedom oa.ssh

Date tagged:

01/05/2021, 13:15

Date published:

01/05/2021, 08:15