IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v15y2021i2s1751157721000274.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The gap between Plan S requirements and grantees’ publication practices

Author

Listed:
  • Korytkowski, Przemyslaw
  • Kulczycki, Emanuel

Abstract

In this paper, we investigate potential differences—called the gap—in publication practices between the requirements of three routes established by the cOAlition S to be compliant with Plan S requirements and actual publication patterns, regarding publishing research funded by a national funder. We use Scopus data on 27,302 publications from 2014 to 2019 funded by the National Science Centre Poland (a member of cOAlition S). Our analysis reveals that almost one-third of publications would not meet the requirements of Plan S even though some of them are open access. Moreover, monitoring open access at the level of publications cannot be used to monitor or verify fulfilment of the requirements of Plan S, and gathering data to verify whether a journal is compliant with Plan S is a challenging task because of the lack of trusted data sources. We argue that the implementation of Plan S would require either a change of publication practices by researchers, or a substantial transformation of the academic publishing market to meet the expectation designed by cOAlition S and implemented by national and regional funders.

Suggested Citation

  • Korytkowski, Przemyslaw & Kulczycki, Emanuel, 2021. "The gap between Plan S requirements and grantees’ publication practices," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:15:y:2021:i:2:s1751157721000274
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2021.101156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157721000274
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101156?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thed N. van Leeuwen & Clifford Tatum & Paul F. Wouters, 2018. "Exploring possibilities to use bibliometric data to monitor gold open access publishing at the national level," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(9), pages 1161-1173, September.
    2. Vincent Larivière & Stefanie Haustein & Philippe Mongeon, 2015. "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    3. Przemysław Korytkowski & Emanuel Kulczycki, 2019. "Examining how country-level science policy shapes publication patterns: the case of Poland," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(3), pages 1519-1543, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yashan Li & Jinge Mao & Lin Zhang & Dongbo Wang & Si Shen & Ying Huang, 2022. "How scientific research incorporates policy: an examination using the case of China’s science and technology evaluation system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5283-5306, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Samuel A. Moore, 2020. "Revisiting “the 1990s debutante”: Scholar‐led publishing and the prehistory of the open access movement," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(7), pages 856-866, July.
    2. Toluwase Asubiaro & Sodiq Onaolapo & David Mills, 2024. "Regional disparities in Web of Science and Scopus journal coverage," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(3), pages 1469-1491, March.
    3. Stephan Puehringer & Johanna Rath & Teresa Griesebner, 2021. "The political economy of academic publishing: On the commodification of a public good," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(6), pages 1-21, June.
    4. de Oliveira, Thaiane Moreira & de Albuquerque, Sofia & Toth, Janderson Pereira & Bello, Debora Zava, 2018. "International cooperation networks of the BRICS bloc," SocArXiv b6x43, Center for Open Science.
    5. Niels Taubert & Anne Hobert & Najko Jahn & Andre Bruns & Elham Iravani, 2023. "Understanding differences of the OA uptake within the German university landscape (2010–2020): part 1—journal-based OA," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3601-3625, June.
    6. Emilija Stojmenova Duh & Andrej Duh & Uroš Droftina & Tim Kos & Urban Duh & Tanja Simonič Korošak & Dean Korošak, 2019. "Publish-and-Flourish: Using Blockchain Platform to Enable Cooperative Scholarly Communication," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-15, May.
    7. Chris H. J. Hartgerink & Marino Van Zelst, 2018. "“As-You-Go” Instead of “After-the-Fact”: A Network Approach to Scholarly Communication and Evaluation," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-10, April.
    8. Julián David Cortés-Sánchez, 2019. "Innovation in Latin America through the lens of bibliometrics: crammed and fading away," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 869-895, November.
    9. Jesse L. Reynolds & Edward A. Parson, 2020. "Nonstate governance of solar geoengineering research," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 160(2), pages 323-342, May.
    10. You, Taekho & Park, Jinseo & Lee, June Young & Yun, Jinhyuk & Jung, Woo-Sung, 2022. "Disturbance of questionable publishing to academia," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    11. S. P. J. M. Horbach & W. Halffman, 2019. "The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 339-373, January.
    12. Siler, Kyle & Larivière, Vincent, 2022. "Who games metrics and rankings? Institutional niches and journal impact factor inflation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    13. Chris H. J. Hartgerink, 2016. "688,112 Statistical Results: Content Mining Psychology Articles for Statistical Test Results," Data, MDPI, vol. 1(3), pages 1-6, September.
    14. Mark Armstrong, 2021. "Plan S: An economist's perspective," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2017-2026, December.
    15. Diana Amirbekova & Timur Narbaev & Meruyert Kussaiyn, 2022. "The Research Environment in a Developing Economy: Reforms, Patterns, and Challenges in Kazakhstan," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, October.
    16. Jack E. James, 2020. "Pirate open access as electronic civil disobedience: Is it ethical to breach the paywalls of monetized academic publishing?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(12), pages 1500-1504, December.
    17. Fei Shu & Vincent Larivière, 2024. "The oligopoly of open access publishing," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 519-536, January.
    18. Mona Farouk Ali, 2025. "Investigating shifts in publication patterns after launching scientometric evaluation at Egyptian universities: an analysis of submitted research for promotion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1751-1787, March.
    19. Schmal, W. Benedikt & Haucap, Justus & Knoke, Leon, 2023. "The role of gender and coauthors in academic publication behavior," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(10).
    20. Morgan, Thomas J. H. & Smaldino, Paul E., 2024. "Author-Paid Publication Fees Corrupt Science and Should Be Abandoned," OSF Preprints 3ez9v, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:15:y:2021:i:2:s1751157721000274. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.