Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

(EU) Plan S Rights Retention Strategy, Copyright and the Academic Community – Part One – Scholarly Kitchen (Robert Harington | February 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on May 1, 2021
Keywords: Institutional responsibilities, Journal, Publication ethics, Research results, Researcher responsibilities

The Linked Original Item was Posted On February 18, 2021

An Open Access icon

As a society publisher, I have been struggling to understand how best to serve our mathematical community on issues of copyright, Creative Commons licensing, and openness.

An interesting reflection on the impact of Plan S on copyright and the interests of authors. We will be publishing Part Two of this discussion tomorrow. We have included links to a swag of related items.

I am concerned that as publishers we are moving ahead of our authors and readers and not considering what may be best for research and dissemination of research. These issues come into sharp relief as the publishing community struggles to respond effectively to the Plan S Rights Retention Strategy (RRS). Plan S is essentially requesting authors to publish in a Gold open access (OA) setting, which works for some academic communities but not others – mathematics being a community where there are very few funding sources available to authors to publish with article processing charges (APCs). Plan S does allow an author to publish an article in a Green OA setting with zero embargo, and this may be achieved with an author accepted manuscript, or the final version of the article.

This is all fine, but it is the next bit that has me confused. Plan S is requiring that a CC BY license be used. Clearly, a license does not affect copyright – the author may retain copyright. An author who then uses a CC BY license is then essentially providing blanket permission for reuse of their content provided there is attribution to the author. Is this a good thing? I am not sure. Does allowing reuse by others to derive profits, or combine with other products serve our academic communities and enhance research? There is perhaps an argument to be made for liberal reuse policies stimulating a serendipitous scientific finding in future years – but I see no evidence that this is more than a hope. I do understand that in some fields there may be a perceived gain in allowing, for example, Pharma to use a published work to enhance drug development – even if a significant motivating force is profit. But that gain remains unclear. CC BY allows the reuse of the words written in the article in that particular order as well as the images used in the article. It does not offer any ability to reuse the ideas or discoveries presented in the article beyond what is already permitted (and potentially not permitted through patents filed by the authors, which are still allowable under Plan S and other OA funder requirements).

Plan S Rights Retention Strategy, Copyright and the Academic Community – Part One
Robert Harington talks to a range of expert stakeholders with differing views about the Plan S Rights Retention Strategy and Creative Commons Licensing. Part 1 of 2 interview posts.

Related Reading

Publishers claim Plan S’ repository rules will bankrupt journals – Times Higher Education (Jack Grove | February 2021)

Open-access Plan S to allow publishing in any journal – Nature (Richard Van Noorden | July 2020)

New deals could help scientific societies survive open access – Science (Jeffrey Brainard | September 2019)

‘Broken access’ publishing corrodes quality – Nature (Adriano Aguzzi | June 2019)

Plan S and the Transformation of Scholarly Communication: Are We Missing the Woods? – Scholarly Kitchen (Alison Mudditt | June 2019)

Ambitious open-access Plan S delayed to let research community adapt – Nature (Holly Else | May 2019)

(US) Politics and Open Access – Scholarly Kitchen (Robert Harington | December 2019)

Plan U: Universal access to scientific and medical research via funder preprint mandates (Papers: Richard Sever, et al | June 2019)

(Includes an update 07/06/2019) A report about Plan S’s potential effects on journals marks a busy week for the open-access movement – Science (Jeffrey Brainard | March 2019)

Open Access, Academic Freedom, and the Spectrum of Coercive Power – Scholarly Kitchen (Rick Anderson | November 2018)

High-profile subscription journals critique Plan S – Nature (Holly Else | February 2019)

Will the world embrace Plan S, the radical proposal to mandate open access to science papers? – Science (Tania Rabesandratana | January 2019)

Funder open access platforms – a welcome innovation? – LSE Impact Blog (Tony Ross-Hellauer, et al | July 2018)

Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions – Nature (Holly Else | September 2018)

Europe’s open-access drive escalates as university stand-offs spread – Science (Holly Else | May 2018)

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A diverse group discussing a topic

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Menu
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
Menu
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
Menu
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in