This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Else H (2019) High-profile subscription journals critique Plan S. Nature (February 26, 2019). doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00596-x
Kiley R, Smits RJ (2019) cOAlition S: response to PNAS. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116(13):5859–5860. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1902136116
McNutt M (2019a) Opinion: “Plan S” falls short for society publishers-and for the researchers they serve. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116(7):2400–2403. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900359116
McNutt M (2019b) Reply to Kiley and Smits: meeting Plan S’s goal of maximizing access to research. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116(13):5861. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1902498116
Plan S (2019) Making full and immediate open access a reality. https://www.coalition-s.org/
European Scientists (2019) Reaction of researchers to Plan S: too far, too risky? https://docs.google.com/document/d/12dP20OxhjdaUAcc4x8f0TDUWTxCTSF0Xv53w25-JLIE/edit)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gómez-Fernández, J.C. Plan S for publishing science in an open access way: not everyone is likely to be happy. Biophys Rev 11, 841–842 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12551-019-00604-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12551-019-00604-4