Plan S and open access

Is Plan S the White Knight for Open Access Publishing?

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

The quest for open access (OA) in academic publishing has been a turbulent journey, filled with passionate advocates, wary publishers, and cautious funders debating how best to unlock scholarly knowledge for the benefit of all. In this arena, Plan S has emerged as one of the most ambitious and controversial initiatives of recent times.

Launched by cOAlition S, a consortium of national research funders and charitable foundations, Plan S mandates that scientific publications resulting from publicly funded research must be published in fully compliant open-access journals or platforms by a set deadline, initially 2021, but with some flexibility added later.

At first glance, Plan S sounds like the proverbial white knight, galloping in to rescue academia from the iron grip of paywalls and sky-high subscription fees. Its promise is simple yet powerful: immediate, free, unrestricted access to research outputs paid for by the public. However, beneath this glossy promise lies a complex web of challenges, resistance, unintended consequences, and fundamental questions about the future of scholarly publishing.

This article delves deeply into Plan S—its origins, goals, implementation struggles, industry impact, and the debates surrounding its future—to assess if it truly is the champion open access needs or just another idealistic reform oversimplifying a multifaceted problem.

The Genesis of Plan S: A Response to the Open Access Impasse

The traditional academic publishing model has long been built around subscription fees paid by libraries and institutions. This system, developed in a print era, has faced mounting criticism as digital technology has rendered physical distribution costs negligible. Despite that, countless research articles remain locked behind paywalls, inaccessible to many who would benefit from their knowledge.

Open access advocates have been pushing back for decades, seeking to make scientific knowledge free at the point of access. Various models emerged, including green OA (self-archiving in repositories) and gold OA (publishing in fully open journals). Yet, progress was slow and patchy. Publishers held tight to profitable subscription models, while researchers struggled to balance prestige, impact factors, and mandates from funders.

Plan S was born in this context, led by visionary European funders such as the European Research Council, the UK’s Wellcome Trust, and Germany’s Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). The premise was straightforward: publicly funded research must be openly accessible immediately upon publication. This was not a polite suggestion but a mandate, initially set to come into force by 2021.

What distinguished Plan S from previous policies was its uncompromising nature. Hybrid journals—those publishing a mix of subscription and OA articles—would not be compliant unless transitioning to full OA models. Furthermore, Plan S championed the use of liberal Creative Commons licenses, specifically CC BY, to ensure wide reuse and redistribution rights.

Financially, Plan S introduced a major shift by supporting Article Processing Charges (APCs) to cover publishing costs. Instead of libraries paying subscriptions, authors or their funders would pay APCs upfront. The assumption was that this would incentivize publishers to convert fully to open access, thus dismantling paywalls and accelerating knowledge flow.

The Promises of Plan S: Revolution or Evolution?

Plan S brought a suite of promises that ignited enthusiasm across many corners of academia. For open access proponents, it was a breath of fresh air—an assertive step towards transparency, democratization of knowledge, and faster scientific progress. The logic was compelling: research funded by public money should be accessible to all without barriers.

From an academic perspective, Plan S aimed to remove paywalls that hinder visibility, citation, and interdisciplinary collaboration. If research were freely available, it could be accessed by scientists in developing countries, policymakers crafting legislation, educators preparing lessons, and entrepreneurs innovating products.

By advocating for clear licensing under Creative Commons, Plan S further pushed for innovation beyond academia. Businesses and NGOs could legally reuse and build upon research, expanding its impact exponentially. The approach aligned with broader open science ideals promoting transparency, reproducibility, and societal engagement.

On the publishing front, Plan S sought to spur a major shift from legacy subscription journals to sustainable, transparent OA business models. Transformative agreements, where subscription revenue is repurposed into OA fees, were seen as a transitional tool to achieve full open access ecosystems.

Plan S’s strict deadlines and compliance criteria sent a strong message: incremental change was no longer acceptable. The plan aimed to accelerate a revolution in scholarly communication, sparking publishers to innovate or risk becoming obsolete.

The Reality Check: Implementation Challenges and Industry Pushback

Despite its lofty ideals, Plan S’s rollout has met fierce pushback and practical obstacles. The academic publishing landscape is deeply entrenched, with complex incentive structures, financial dependencies, and cultural norms. Attempting rapid, sweeping change has proven akin to trying to turn an ocean liner on a dime.

First, the compliance requirements posed difficulties for many researchers. Not all disciplines or regions have sufficiently developed OA journals or platforms that meet Plan S standards. This is particularly true in the humanities and social sciences, where OA infrastructure lags behind STEM fields. Researchers found themselves stuck between funder mandates and limited publishing options.

Second, hybrid journals remain the dominant publishing model in many disciplines, and major publishers resisted Plan S’s categorical rejection of them. Publishers argued that the plan ignores the realities of the scholarly ecosystem and risks fragmenting it. Critics pointed out that the APC funding mechanism may simply shift paywalls from readers to authors, raising equity concerns. Researchers or institutions with less funding could be effectively priced out of publishing.

Third, Plan S raised thorny issues around academic freedom and career progression. Researchers worried about mandates dictating where they can publish, potentially limiting choices or forcing them away from prestigious journals crucial for tenure and promotion. This dynamic created tension between open access goals and individual career incentives.

Fourth, Plan S’s initial focus on European funders and journals caused friction with the global research community. Many funders outside Europe hesitated to adopt similar mandates, creating a fragmented system. Cross-border collaborations faced complications as compliance rules diverged.

Finally, the plan sparked worries about quality control and predatory publishing. Some researchers, desperate to comply, turned to questionable OA journals lacking rigorous peer review. This undermined scholarly standards and muddied the open access reputation.

How Plan S Has Influenced the Publishing Ecosystem

Despite challenges, Plan S has undeniably shaken the scholarly publishing world. It turbocharged discussions around open access and pressured publishers to innovate rapidly. Several publishers responded with transformative agreements, new OA journal launches, and more transparent APC pricing.

Plan S also drew attention to alternative OA business models beyond the APC system. For example, “diamond open access” journals charge no fees to authors or readers, relying instead on institutional or governmental support. This is gaining traction as a sustainable and equitable option.

Libraries and research institutions have shifted budgets to support APC payments and compliance services. They have also embraced preprint servers and institutional repositories to maximize accessibility.

Nevertheless, unintended consequences surfaced. The emphasis on Plan S-compliant journals has sidelined important subscription journals with regional or niche significance. In some cases, researchers’ publishing options are narrowed, especially in smaller fields.

The initiative also exposed disparities between well-resourced and less-resourced institutions. Larger universities can navigate APCs and compliance with relative ease, while smaller or developing-country institutions struggle, raising serious equity questions.

Plan S and the Role of Technology: A Double-Edged Sword

Technology plays a pivotal role in Plan S’s vision, but it also reveals new challenges. Digital platforms enable rapid, free dissemination of research, but infrastructure gaps remain.

Plan S encourages the use of open repositories and preprint servers, which proved invaluable during urgent situations like the COVID-19 pandemic. These tools accelerate knowledge sharing beyond traditional publication cycles.

At the same time, repositories face issues with a lack of standardization, version control, and quality assurance. This can lead to duplicated efforts, confusion over the most authoritative version, or dissemination of unvetted information.

Artificial intelligence and automation are being deployed to ease administrative burdens, such as compliance checks and metadata management. However, these technologies require investment and expertise, creating potential barriers for smaller institutions or publishers.

Technological innovation also sparks debates about the future role of publishers. As dissemination tools proliferate, publishers must justify their value beyond distribution—through quality assurance, curation, and community-building.

The Global Perspective: Inclusivity and Equity Concerns

Plan S’s principles resonate globally, but its APC-centric approach has raised concerns about widening inequalities. The promise of open access is universal, yet implementation risks marginalizing researchers in developing countries or underfunded disciplines.

Critics warn that the current OA funding model privileges wealthy institutions able to cover APCs, leaving others behind. Language bias also persists, as many OA journals publish primarily in English, limiting participation from non-English-speaking researchers.

Plan S has sparked broader debates about how to build a truly global, inclusive scholarly communication system. Models like diamond OA and regional consortia gain attention as ways to ensure equitable participation.

There are also discussions about the digital divide—access to infrastructure and internet connectivity remains uneven worldwide, affecting who can benefit from open access resources.

The Future of Plan S: Evolution or Revolution?

The question remains: Is Plan S the white knight poised to rescue open access publishing, or is it an idealistic initiative with flaws that need serious revision?

Plan S is neither a flawless savior nor a doomed failure. It acts as a catalyst, forcing a reckoning with long-standing publishing problems. Its strict mandates revealed weaknesses and inequities but also spurred innovation and dialogue.

Going forward, Plan S will likely evolve to be more flexible and inclusive of diverse disciplines, funding models, and global perspectives. It may incorporate a wider array of open access routes and foster greater collaboration among stakeholders.

The scholarly publishing landscape is too complex for a one-size-fits-all solution. Cultural change, technological investment, and realignment of incentives will be essential. Plan S has opened the door to a new future, but the academic community must walk through it with care, vision, and pragmatism.

Conclusion

Plan S arrived on the scene with the promise of a white knight—championing open access, transparency, and democratized knowledge in a world long dominated by costly paywalls. Its bold, uncompromising stance has stirred the academic publishing ecosystem, accelerating progress toward open science.

Yet the reality is nuanced. Plan S faces significant challenges, including inclusivity, academic freedom, practical implementation hurdles, and global coordination. It has encountered resistance from publishers, researchers, and institutions navigating an uneven landscape.

Rather than a perfect hero, Plan S functions more as a disruptive force—a much-needed wake-up call pushing all stakeholders to rethink scholarly communication. Its true legacy may be less about immediate transformation and more about sparking innovation, debate, and gradual, meaningful change.

In this light, Plan S is a white knight in training—far from flawless but necessary, promising, and catalytic. The journey to open access will not be won overnight or by mandate alone. It will require collaboration, adaptation, and commitment to sustainability and equity. Plan S has swung open the gate; now the global scholarly community must pass through thoughtfully and boldly.

Leave a comment