Plan S: In service or disservice to society?

The controversial plan for scientific research publications to be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms is discussed. The article has been co‐published with permission in European Heart Journal and British Journal of Pharmacology. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.

the lay press, suggesting that the publishing of scientific endeavour within the biomedical sciences may lack rigour, has triggered many journals to make recommendations regarding not only transparency but also the design and the analysis of research (Curtis et al., 2015;Curtis et al., 2018;Sipido et al., 2014). Such moves are positive actions by journals and are particularly important since they emphasize the responsibility of scientific publishers. In the "post-truth society" the principles of science need to be defended particularly strongly by the scientists themselves (Sipido, 2017). Without such a presence, it is possible that politicians responsible for the majority of science funding worldwide, come to the conclusion that there really is a lack of integrity within basic biomedical research and so seek to use resource elsewhere. We know from recent events in the political sphere that it is enough to fund and tweet an illusion of fact. An approach that has been proposed to normalize the influence of social media is the "open" availability of the detail of the "truth," and for biomedical research that means Gold Open Access publishing. This form of publishing is where the author pays to publish their work and then the publisher makes that work freely available to anyone, from anywhere across the globe, with access to the digital world (Antoniades, Small, & Guzik, 2018;Guzik, 2018). Such an approach is gaining support and the most recent expression of that support comes in the form of "Plan S." 2 | WHAT IS PLAN S? COAlition S, initiated by a group of national research funding organizations, with the support of the European Commission and the European Research Council (ERC), has very noble origins and aims.
They are based upon the idea that "open access is foundational to the scientific enterprise" and that "publication paywalls are withholding a substantial amount of research results from a large fraction of the scientific community and from society as a whole" (https://www. coalition-s.org/why-plan-s/accessed on January 4, 2019; Table 1).
The primary aim of Plan S, is that after January 1, 2020, scientific publications on the results from research funded by public grants, provided by the national and European research councils and funding bodies that comprise COAlition S (http://www.coalition-s.org), "must be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms." It might also be worth describing here the position of Plan S with regard to hybrid titles, that is, that it will be acceptable to publish in hybrid titles only if they are part of a read and publish deal, where these read and publish deals can only run from 2020 to 2022 when there must be a plan in place to convert to fully gold UKRI Chief Executive Professor Sir Mark Walport said: "Making research widely available and freely accessible is essential to unlocking its potential for creating economic, social and cultural benefits." As Editors in Chief of learned society-owned journals and as working scientists, we, as likely all researchers, subscribe to this overarching aim. Removing journal subscriptions would indeed allow universal access, to those with internet connectivity, to the published record, but this possibly simplistic approach may not be the panacea that it is being held up as and in particular not necessarily for authors. This is because the devil is, as always, in the detail.

COAlition S proposes a solution to the aspiration of open research
that may endanger our ability to maintain quality control of the scientific publication process and that may actually lend further fuel to the issues surrounding lack of reproducibility. It is likely that a major consideration for Plan S is based on the misconception that maintenance of high-quality publishing in the digital world eliminates cost or, at least, provides low-cost options. Indeed, while the costs of printing may not be necessary with open access, the digital revolution has brought new challenges themselves with cost implications that may have been overlooked. This starts with the initial editorial processing, checks for plagiarism, and conforming to journal guidelines. In addition, the advent of technologies enabling access to large or complex datasets, the need to ensure data quality, and the need for highresolution presentation of imaging data, as well as availability of safe data storage and access that will need to fulfil data protection laws, all bring costs with them. These are only some of the challenges and costs related to publication in the digital era, and these are all likely to rise with increasing use of big data and artificial intelligence in research (Lamata, 2018).
The Plan S timetable for the proposed implementation also raises questions. We may envisage that, next year, research funded by the above-mentioned funders cannot be published by Nature, Science, British Journal of Pharmacology, Cardiovascular Research, or the European Heart Journal, favouring in contrast any open access journal whatever its "quality." Is this an intention of COAlition S funders?
Probably not, and at least, the rhetoric on the website suggests not, but very similarly to Brexit … it seems to steer us onto very rough waters. However, as in the case of Brexit, we ask-has this ship already sailed-do we get to vote again or can we find an optimal solution that will benefit science, scientists, and society?

| WHY IS IT CONTROVERSIAL?
As indicated above, one would have thought that the overall concept of open science would be commended and applauded by scientists worldwide. However, in early November 2018, a group of nearly 750 scientists from all corners of the globe published an open letter expressing concerns about Plan S. The letter contained several arguments against aspects of the proposal including that "Plan S is a serious violation of academic freedom" and "strongly reduces access to (and possibilities to publish in) suitable scientific journals of high quality, with a direct consequence that it also strongly restricts our choice of countries with which we can conveniently collaborate with or sustain lasting exchange programs." These are strong words to come from such eminent scientists. Why is that what seems such a good idea is so controversial? Mainly, we think, because of the proposed way of executing it.
First, banning publication in hybrid journals imposes, in the short time frame of the next 12 months, a complete change of the way publications are managed. Hybrid journals represent over 85% of existing journals. These are currently in the majority as they are not based on the idea of publishing the largest possible number of papers, but rather on a valuable and rigorous peer review system of high quality that seeks to ensure the publication of quality. The majority of the most important not-for-profit society-owned journals belong to this category, such as European Heart Journal and TABLE 1 Plan S key principles (https://www.coalition-s.org/whyplan-s/accessed on January 4, 2019) "After January 1, 2020, scientific publications on the results from research funded by public grants provided by national and European research councils and funding bodies must be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms." • Authors retain copyright of their publication with no restrictions. All publications must be published under an open license, preferably the Creative Commons Attribution Licence CC BY. In all cases, the license applied should fulfil the requirements defined by the Berlin Declaration; • The Funders will ensure jointly the establishment of robust criteria and requirements for the services that compliant high-quality Open Access journals and Open Access platforms must provide; • In case such high-quality Open Access journals or platforms do not yet exist, the Funders will, in a coordinated way, provide incentives to establish and support them when appropriate; support will also be provided for Open Access infrastructures where necessary; • Where applicable, Open Access publication fees are covered by the Funders or universities, not by individual researchers; it is acknowledged that all scientists should be able to publish their work Open Access even if their institutions have limited means; • When Open Access publication fees are applied, their funding is standardized and capped (across Europe); • The Funders will ask universities, research organizations, and libraries to align their policies and strategies, notably to ensure transparency; • The above principles shall apply to all types of scholarly publications, but it is understood that the timeline to achieve Open Access for monographs and books may be longer than January 1, 2020; • The importance of open archives and repositories for hosting research outputs is acknowledged because of their long-term archiving function and their potential for editorial innovation; • The "hybrid" model of publishing is not compliant with the above principles; • The Funders will monitor compliance and sanction non-compliance. access charges is reasonable, to make publication possible, these charges will remain substantial and will divide the world across the wealth line, with poorer world areas potentially being left outside of the "new open access world." Researchers from these countries could be pushed into a position of "consumers" of science-getting wider and free access to publications but likely not being able to afford publishing in these journals.
Therefore, instead of removing barriers and equalizing opportunities, it may lead to further split between high-income and low-and It is also likely that many funders will not sign up to the Plan S initiative, not least because of the economic burden placed on researchers in low-and middle-income nations described above. It could lead to the creation of two competing systems resulting in "a strong negative effect on collaborations between COAlition S countries and the rest of the world, because joint publications in the highest quality selective journals, based on rigorous peer review and quality control procedures, with the highest standing in the community, won't be possible anymore Another key criticism is that Plan S enforces the same solutions for different fields, not taking into account, for example, that in physics, most papers are published on pre-publication servers, while in informatics, publications in conference proceedings are of primary importance. Thus, not every field can be measured by the same standards.
Finally, while giving the ownership of a publication's license back to the authors is great, the proposition of universal use of Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY) may create a problem.
According to the definition, this license allows others to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. While it allows maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials, it also pretty much allows for use of these in advertising and other forms.
COAlition S responds to all of the criticisms we have outlined by referring to their good motives and proposing a variety of "exceptions" and "get-arounds," all of which further the feeling, at least for us, that the Plan S proposals are not quite right.

| AN ALTERNATIVE-BRINGING "S " BACK TO SOCIETY …
Does the famous Winston Churchill quote from 1947 apply here that "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or allwise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. …"? Probably not in its entire meaning. There is no question that the current system needs improvement; the model that we have permits, for those publishers that wish to, abuse of their privileged place in the structure of the scientific world. But we ask: Is such a rapid and so controversial approach of opening science really the best solution at the moment? Is the removal of journal subscriptions, the ultimate goal of Plan S, a solution to all of our current problems? We think maybe not.
In our view, the existence of not-for-profit, learned societies, such as the European Society of Cardiology and the British Pharmacological Society, provide a unique opportunity to disrupt the publishing landscape but in a manner that benefits not only all those that wish to read the material but also the authors and their disciplines. We suggest a major disruptive measure that funders might like to consider for immediate action. We propose that in order to facilitate an open science and publication model that serves society, funders should consider mandating publication (or at least a proportion of the outputs) in journals owned by learned societies and professional associations, where the majority of the funds from publishing come back to serve both the researchers and the general public at large. This approach as a first step we suggest would allow maintenance of scientific rigour and quality, while ensuring that access to research is not unethically monetized.