The publisher is committed to financial sustainability. How it achieves it is an open question.
After several high surplus years, a relatively small 2016 deficit will not sink PLOS. However, the trend over the past five years does not look encouraging, and 2017 looks no better.
Can PLOS exist without a mega-journal?
Why did such a small price increase arouse such a big reaction from open access advocates?
A Silicon Valley journalist has seen open access and deemed it disruptive. He’s 15+ years and scads of evidence behind the times, as we enter the post-disruption era.
PLOS has set a new policy, requiring authors to make all data behind their published results publicly available. This has been met with a great deal of controversy from the research community. Thoughts on why this policy and why now…
Are we witnessing the decline of the open access megajournal and a return to a discipline-based model of publishing?
Authors should not be surprised when their open access articles show up in surprising places. Is it possible to embrace open access with some restrictions?
More on the shake-up at PLoS — how rare these types of departures are, why a board might make such a move, and how unsatisfactory every scenario but the most obvious becomes once you begin to run scenarios.
PLoS has announced the departure of both its CEO and CFO, but has provided no explanation of what led to the management change. PLoS should explain the situation to all its shareholders.
A fundamental confusion between articles and data leads to a call for more CC licenses and less copyright. But why are data being closed down while articles are being opened up? Is there a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright, licensing, and rights?
A recent attempt by SPARC and others to assess “How Open Is It?” shows how complex OA publishing is, but also fails to accurately represent the potential complexities in many areas.
A flash mob of concern causes PLoS to reconsider a new policy on retractions.
While block grants may be a preferred way to disperse money to fund public access mandates, their actual use may cause problems for researchers and universities.
Vitriol may have obscured important points in a post last week. The growing business strategy of our era is to drive the cost of everyone else’s product to zero in order to make more money from your own product. This imbalance stifles innovation and creation.