The application is reviewed by the secretariat of Agreement S. A response indicating whether your application has been accepted will be submitted within 4 weeks of the filing date. Newspapers that are granted transformative journal status are available on www.coalition-s.org/plan-s-compliant-transformative-journals In addition to contractual transformation agreements between publishers and libraries, there are also a number of other models that wish to support open-access publishing through various processing mechanisms. While I have not discussed these other approaches here, they are well described in Section 4 of Towards Transitions Strategies and Business Models for Society Publishers who want to accelerate open access and Plan S. Some of these mechanisms could be followed at the same time as transformation agreements, while others would exclude them. We work with institutions and funders around the world to help researchers publish Gold Open Access in their selected magazines. These agreements may mean that individual authors can benefit from a reduced publication fee for articles (APCs) or publish open access for free for themselves. The principles of transformation agreements generally include a number of components related to the transition from subscription to contract publishing. Transformative agreements are a way for publishers to convert their subscription logs into full open access. The cost of open access is part of a general UCL payment covering both subscriptions and open-access publishing. Open access fees are part of the agreement: the publication of a document does not include additional open access charges. But furthermore, I suppose the success of the library lies in the “transformative” aspect of an agreement – but do we know if it is really controlled? Is it too early to tell? Do we want the S coalition to invent a solution (or, in any case, to provide the means and strategy to put such surveillance in place)? When will an agreement be considered sufficiently “transformative”? Transformative agreements exist everywhere and, although they received more attention last year, particularly in North America, they are not new. The five largest publishers as well as other small publishers have signed one or more transformation contracts.
These agreements can be made with an individual library (for example. B MIT/Royal Society of Chemistry), a library system (for example. B University of California/Cambridge University Press) or a consortium of libraries (for example. B, VSNU-UKB/Springer Nature). It`s a useful analysis. But is the emperor well dressed? Do libraries really want what is available to them? The institutional logic of these agreements seems to be opposed to selection and editorial investment. On the academic side, the agreement will look like a “better deal” for California (or Norway) when more documents are published on the publishing platform and it is not known why publishers want to hold back. On the publishing side, it seems that in the case of annual payment, there are every reason to minimize costs or editorial investments and to look for short-haul and minimize cure costs.
Doesn`t it feel sustainable, or do I miss something? These agreements help to simplify the management of the OA for participating institutions and have shown that they radically increase the adoption of OA by authors.