Plan S: Motivations of for-profit publishers.

Abstract

Recent EU policies known as Plan S require researchers funded with EU grants to publish in open-access journals to make articles more publicly accessible (“European funders seek to end reign of paywalled journals,” M. Enserink, In Depth, 7 September 2018, p. [957][1]). Critics of these policies claim that they will cause a gradual shift toward publishing in open-access journals and will deepen the divide between authors who have the capacity to pay open-access publishing fees and those who do not ([ 1 ][2]). However, the distinction between the open-access and paywall model is not the only axis that needs to be considered. An important dividing criterion that predicts journals' behavior toward promoting accessibility is whether they have a for-profit or nonprofit business model. For-profit publishers make a lot of money; the big three–Elsevier ([ 2 ][3]), Springer Nature ([ 3 ][4]), and Wiley ([ 4 ][5])—made US$3.2, US$1.9, and US$1.7 billion in revenue in 2017, respectively, with Elsevier banking 37% of revenue as profit ([ 2 ][3]). This profit motivation justifies charging excess fees, which hinder accessibility. For example, in response to the high publication fees and other open-access policies at the Elsevier-published Journal of Informetrics , the entire editorial board resigned and went on to establish the open-access journal Quantitative Science Studies. Published by the nonprofit MIT Press, Quantitative Science Studies charges article processing fees that are less than half of those charged by Elsevier ([ 5 ][6]). Most scientists would agree that they want their research to become more publicly accessible, but the fact of the matter is that it costs money to publish an article and host it online for both for-profit and nonprofit publishers. Yet, unlike for-profit publishers, nonprofit publishers such as AAAS (the publisher of Science ), the Public Library of Science (PLoS), and the Royal Society reinvest their profits into programs that benefit the community. Although these organizations need enough revenue to remain sustainable, they may be more flexible about adjusting their model for the sake of accessibility. Important questions to consider beyond open access vs. paywall remain: Should the products and services that scientists provide to journals for free—manuscripts, peer review, editorial oversight—be used for profit? Do for-profit publishers' interests align with those of the scientific community to make science more accessible for both researchers and readers? Initiatives such as Plan S might also consider whether publicly funded research published by for-profit publishers aligns with a mandate to make access to science more open overall. 1. [↵][7]1. M. Burgman et al ., Conserv. Biol. 33, 5 (2018). [OpenUrl][8] 2. [↵][9]“2017 RELX Group annual report” (RELX Group, 2018), p. 17; [www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/reports/annual-reports/relx2017-annual-report.pdf][10]. 3. [↵][11]“Springer Nature GmbH, Berlin, consolidated financial statements as at 31 December 2017” (Springer Nature, 2018); [www.equitystory.com/Download/Companies/springernature/Annual%20Reports/2017\_FinancialReportandAuditorOpinion\_En.pdf][12]. 4. [↵][13]“Wiley Fourth Quarter and Fiscal 2017 earnings report” (Wiley, 2017); . 5. [↵][14]1. D. S. Chawla , Nature 10.1038/d41586-019-00135-8 (2019). [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/361/6406/957 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #ref-5 [7]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [8]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DConserv.%2BBiol.%26rft.volume%253D33%26rft.spage%253D5%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [10]: http://www.relx.com/~/media/Files/R/RELX-Group/documents/reports/annual-reports/relx2017-annual-report.pdf [11]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [12]: http://www.equitystory.com/Download/Companies/springernature/Annual%20Reports/2017_FinancialReportandAuditorOpinion_En.pdf [13]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text [14]: #xref-ref-5-1 View reference 5 in text