The Plan S Rights Retention Strategy is an administrative and legal burden, not a sustainable open access solution

The Plan S Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) requires authors who are submitting to subscription journals to inform publishers that the author accepted manuscript (AAM) will be made available under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. The laudable stated aim of the RRS is to achieve immedia...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Shaun Yon-Seng Khoo
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Ubiquity Press 2021
Materias:	open access rights retention plan s creative commons licence copyright Bibliography. Library science. Information resources Z
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/20c6fb7dccf14a22910038dd6ee08bc9
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:20c6fb7dccf14a22910038dd6ee08bc9
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:20c6fb7dccf14a22910038dd6ee08bc92021-11-08T08:16:32ZThe Plan S Rights Retention Strategy is an administrative and legal burden, not a sustainable open access solution2048-775410.1629/uksg.556https://doaj.org/article/20c6fb7dccf14a22910038dd6ee08bc92021-10-01T00:00:00Zhttps://insights.uksg.org/articles/556https://doaj.org/toc/2048-7754The Plan S Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) requires authors who are submitting to subscription journals to inform publishers that the author accepted manuscript (AAM) will be made available under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. The laudable stated aim of the RRS is to achieve immediate open access to research outputs, while preserving journal choice for authors. However, proponents of the RRS overlook the significant administrative and legal burdens that the RRS places on authors and readers. Even though compliance with existing green open access (self-archiving) policies is poor at best, the RRS is likely to rely on authors to successfully execute the CC licensing of their work in the face of publisher resistance. The complexity of copyright law and CC licensing gives many reasons to doubt the legal validity of an RRS licence grant, which creates legal risk for authors and their institutions. The complexity of RRS CC BY licensing also creates legal risk for readers, who may not be able to fully rely on the reuse rights of a CC BY licence on the AAM. However, cOAlition S has released no legal advice that explains why the RRS is valid and legally binding. Publishers of legacy subscription journals have already begun implementing strategies that ensure they can protect their revenue streams. These actions may leave authors having to choose between paying publication fees and complying with their funding agreements. The result is that the RRS increases the complexity of the copyright and licensing landscape in academic publishing, creates legal risk and may not avoid author fees. Unless increased complexity and conflict between authors and publishers drives open access, the RRS is not fit for its stated purpose as an open access strategy.Shaun Yon-Seng KhooUbiquity Pressarticleopen accessrights retentionplan screative commonslicencecopyrightBibliography. Library science. Information resourcesZENInsights: The UKSG Journal , Vol 34, Iss 1 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	open access rights retention plan s creative commons licence copyright Bibliography. Library science. Information resources Z
spellingShingle	open access rights retention plan s creative commons licence copyright Bibliography. Library science. Information resources Z Shaun Yon-Seng Khoo The Plan S Rights Retention Strategy is an administrative and legal burden, not a sustainable open access solution
description	The Plan S Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) requires authors who are submitting to subscription journals to inform publishers that the author accepted manuscript (AAM) will be made available under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. The laudable stated aim of the RRS is to achieve immediate open access to research outputs, while preserving journal choice for authors. However, proponents of the RRS overlook the significant administrative and legal burdens that the RRS places on authors and readers. Even though compliance with existing green open access (self-archiving) policies is poor at best, the RRS is likely to rely on authors to successfully execute the CC licensing of their work in the face of publisher resistance. The complexity of copyright law and CC licensing gives many reasons to doubt the legal validity of an RRS licence grant, which creates legal risk for authors and their institutions. The complexity of RRS CC BY licensing also creates legal risk for readers, who may not be able to fully rely on the reuse rights of a CC BY licence on the AAM. However, cOAlition S has released no legal advice that explains why the RRS is valid and legally binding. Publishers of legacy subscription journals have already begun implementing strategies that ensure they can protect their revenue streams. These actions may leave authors having to choose between paying publication fees and complying with their funding agreements. The result is that the RRS increases the complexity of the copyright and licensing landscape in academic publishing, creates legal risk and may not avoid author fees. Unless increased complexity and conflict between authors and publishers drives open access, the RRS is not fit for its stated purpose as an open access strategy.
format	article
author	Shaun Yon-Seng Khoo
author_facet	Shaun Yon-Seng Khoo
author_sort	Shaun Yon-Seng Khoo
title	The Plan S Rights Retention Strategy is an administrative and legal burden, not a sustainable open access solution
title_short	The Plan S Rights Retention Strategy is an administrative and legal burden, not a sustainable open access solution
title_full	The Plan S Rights Retention Strategy is an administrative and legal burden, not a sustainable open access solution
title_fullStr	The Plan S Rights Retention Strategy is an administrative and legal burden, not a sustainable open access solution
title_full_unstemmed	The Plan S Rights Retention Strategy is an administrative and legal burden, not a sustainable open access solution
title_sort	plan s rights retention strategy is an administrative and legal burden, not a sustainable open access solution
publisher	Ubiquity Press
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/20c6fb7dccf14a22910038dd6ee08bc9
work_keys_str_mv	AT shaunyonsengkhoo theplansrightsretentionstrategyisanadministrativeandlegalburdennotasustainableopenaccesssolution AT shaunyonsengkhoo plansrightsretentionstrategyisanadministrativeandlegalburdennotasustainableopenaccesssolution
_version_	1718442785046003712

The Plan S Rights Retention Strategy is an administrative and legal burden, not a sustainable open access solution

Ejemplares similares