Plan S has put the concept of transformative agreements at the forefront of contemporary discussions, but these agreements – and the requirements they are developed – are well ahead of Plan S. Individual libraries, library consortia and national organizations often develop specific requirements for the transformative agreements they seek. For example, open access agreement requirements: Accelerating the Transition to Immediate and Worldwide Open Access offer guides for Jisc collections and uk higher education institutions. Negotiating Journal Agreements at UC: A Call to Action does the same for the University of California system. ESAC: The Efficiency and Standards for Article Charges provides a list of international negotiating principles. Science should be open so that we can all lead healthier lives on a sustainable planet. At Frontiers, all of our publications are available free of charge to everyone around the world from the day of publication. This open access (OA) model of scientific publication – which has proven to increase the scope and impact of scientific results, as shown by consistently higher usage rates (. B for example, quotes and downloads) – has been adopted and supported by a growing number of public institutions, such as donors, universities and libraries, which have introduced rules to support the transition from a scientific communication system that still relies heavily on paywalls. , to a fully open plan (z.B. plan S).
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”? It should be noted that the draft Guide to Implementation of Plan S contains a substantive discussion on transformative agreements (section 11) and adds additional considerations on what cOAlition S 2019 considers to be transformative compared to what will be needed from 2020. In practical terms, the guide states that from 2020, negotiations on transformer contracts must be concluded before the end of 2021, that these contracts must not last more than three years and that the agreements must “include a scenario describing the transformation of the publishing places into full open access at the expiry of the contract”. It is not yet known whether this text will remain in the final version of the instructions. If this were the case, we could face the reality that the same contract could be considered transformative by esaC, but considered by cOAlition S to be non-transformative. It`s not without the question of whether “bronze” Open Access is really open access. Depends on who you`re asking for. 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.