Plan S

From EPrints Documentation
Revision as of 16:15, 29 January 2020 by Drn@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Plan S is an initiative for Open Access publishing that was launched in September 2018. The plan is supported by cOAlition S, an international consortium of research funders. Plan S requires that, from 2021, scientific publications that result from research funded by public grants must be published in compliant Open Access journals or platforms.

Requirements of Open Access Repositories

EPrints as an Open Access repository must meet a number of requirements. Below are the mandatory and recommended conditions across all publication venues as well as specifically for Open Access repositories. EPrints already meets a lot of the requirements. This page is a work in progress but information will be added to each of the requirements below, including information on one of more of the following categories:

  • How EPrints already meets the requirement.
  • What plugin or other additional component could be installed to meet the requirement.
  • How EPrints could or will be modified to meet (or better meet) the requirement.
  • Why it is inappropriate or not possible for EPrints to meet the requirement.

Mandatory technical conditions for all publication venues

A1. Use of persistent identifiers (PIDs) for scholarly publications (with versioning, for example, in case of revisions), such as DOI (preferable), URN, or Handle.

A2. Deposition of content with a long-term digital preservation or archiving programme (such as CLOCKSS, Portico, or equivalent).

A3. High-quality article level metadata in standard interoperable non-proprietary format, under a CC0 public domain dedication. Metadata must include complete and reliable information on funding provided by cOAlition S funders (including as a minimum the name of the funder and the grant number/identifier).

A4. Machine-readable information on the Open Access status and the license embedded in the article, in standard non-proprietary format.

Strongly recommended additional criteria for all publication venues

B1. Support for PIDs for authors (e.g., ORCID), funders, funding programmes and grants, institutions, and other relevant entities.

B2. Registering the self-archiving policy of the venue in SHERPA/RoMEO.

B3. Availability for download of full text for all publications (including supplementary text and data) in a machine-readable community standard format such as JATS XML.

B4. Direct deposition of publications (in a machine-readable community standard format such as JATS XML, and including complete metadata as described above) by the publisher into author designated or centralised Open Access repositories that fulfil the Plan S criteria.

B5. OpenAIRE compliance of the metadata.

B6. Linking to data, code, and other research outputs that underlie the publication and are available in external repositories.

B7. Openly accessible data on citations according to the standards by the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC).

Mandatory criteria for repositories

C1. Use of PIDs for the deposited versions of the publications (with versioning, for example in case of revisions), such as DOI (preferable), URN, or Handle.

C2. High quality article level metadata in standard interoperable non-proprietary format, under a CC0 public domain dedication. This must include information on the DOI (or other PIDs) both of the original publication and the deposited version, on the version deposited (AAM/VoR), and on the Open Access status and the license of the deposited version. Metadata must include complete and reliable information on funding provided by cOAlition S funders (including as a minimum the name of the funder and the grant number/identifier).

C3. Machine readable information on the Open Access status and the license embedded in the article, in standard non-proprietary format.

C4. Continuous availability (uptime at least 99.7%, not taking into account scheduled downtime for maintenance or upgrades).

C5. Helpdesk: as a minimum an email address (functional mailbox) has to be provided; a response time of no more than one business day must be ensured.

Strongly recommended additional criteria for repositories

D1. Manuscript submission system that supports both individual author uploads and bulk uploads of manuscripts (AAM or VoR) by publishers.

D2. Full text stored in a machine-readable community standard format such as JATS XML.

D3. Support for PIDs for authors (e.g., ORCID), funders, funding programmes and grants, institutions, and other relevant entities.

D4. Openly accessible data on citations according to the standards by the Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC).

D5. Open API to allow others (including machines) to access the content. A compliant API must be free to access without any barrier. A light authentication mechanism such as a token for ‘power users’ – e.g., high-traffic collaborators – is acceptable as long as there is a totally open/anonymous route too.

D6. OpenAIRE compliance of the metadata.

D7. Quality assurance processes to link full-text deposits with authoritative bibliographic metadata from third party systems, e.g., PubMed, Crossref, or SCOPUS where feasible.