After Plan S, Here's Plan U: Funders Should Require All Research To Be Posted First As A Preprint

from the instant-open-access? dept

Preprints are emerging as a way to get research out to everyone free of charge, without needing to pay page charges to appear in a traditional open access title. The growing popularity is in part because research shows that published versions of papers in costly academic titles add almost nothing to the freely-available preprints they are based on. Now people are starting to think about ways to put preprints at the heart of academic publishing and research. In the wake of the EU’s “Plan S” to make more research available as open access, there is now a proposal for “Plan U“:

If all research funders required their grantees to post their manuscripts first on preprint servers — an approach we refer to as “Plan U” — the widespread desire to provide immediate free access to the world’s scientific output would be achieved with minimal effort and expense. As noted above, mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists have been relying on arXiv as their primary means of communication for decades. The biomedical sciences were slower to adopt preprinting, but bioRxiv is undergoing exponential growth and several million readers access articles on bioRxiv every month. Depositing preprints is thus increasingly common among scientists, and mandating it would simply accelerate adoption of a process many predict will become universal in the near future.

There is a precedent for mandating preprint deposition: since 2017, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI) has mandated that all grantees deposit preprints prior to or at submission for formal publication. This requirement has been accepted by CZI-funded investigators, many of whom were already routinely depositing manuscripts on bioRxiv.

The proposal goes on to consider some of the practical issues involved, such as how it would fit with peer review, and what the requirements for preprint servers might be, as well as deeper questions about guaranteed long-term preservation strategies — a crucial issue that is often overlooked. The Plan U proposal concludes:

because it sidesteps the complexities and uncertainties of attempting to manipulate the economics of a $10B/year industry, Plan U could literally be mandated by funders tomorrow with minimal expense, achieving immediate free access to research and the significant benefits to the academic community and public this entails. Funders and other stakeholders could then focus their investment and innovation energies on the critical task of building and supporting robust and effective systems of peer review and research evaluation.

Those are all attractive features of the Plan U idea, although Egon Willighagen has rightly pointed out that using the right license for the preprints is an important issue. At the time of writing, the Plan U Web site is rather minimalist. It currently consists of just one page; there are no links to who wrote the proposal, what future plans might be, or how to get involved. I asked around on Twitter, and it seems that three well-known figures in the open science worldMichael Eisen, John Inglis, and Richard Sever — are the people behind this. Eisen has been one of the leading figures in the open access world since its earliest days, while Inglis and Sever are co-founders of the increasingly-popular bioRxiv preprint server, which serves the biology community. That augurs well for the idea, but it would still be good to have the details fleshed out on a more informative Web site — something that Sever told Techdirt will be coming in due course.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “After Plan S, Here's Plan U: Funders Should Require All Research To Be Posted First As A Preprint”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

The thing with peer review is that it is mostly not verification anyway – that is left for replication. I don’t see why potential reviewers, who are not compensated anyway, could not leave review comments on a preprint server.

Most anyone truly interested in a paper is going to be doing their own mental review. Idiots who want to "cite" papers for bullshit idiot things are going to do it regardless as to peer review status, the quality of the research, or any facts involved. Those sorts will make expansive claims or cite things that don’t say what they claim they say regardless.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

That raises the question of what "pre"print will mean. If nobody’s going to see the "final" version, there’s little reason to make changes during that process, which leaves little reason for the process to exist. Kind of like certain ISO standards where everyone works from the latest draft version because the "real" version is locked up. (I’m told my company actually has purchased the C language standard, but I’m not going to waste the time to track that down when I can bring up a draft instantly.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Not really. Final versions are generally edited for format and grammar – not for results. Bad or faked research nakes it’s way into journals anyway. The only thing journals do is add cost and limit the number of papers published in physical paper journals for purely practical limitations and editorial taste as to what they think is important or interesting this month or quarter.

None of this stops "final" (whatever that means in the scientific realm) versions from being published also, if people want to continue paying ridiculous sums for access to esteemed journals for whatever added value they expect they get from these.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...