@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org
Post #2433599
2024-03-29 12:35 UTC
@villavelius@mastodon.online @mattjhodgkinson@scicomm.xyz @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @brembs@mastodon.social
Sever, Eisen and Inglis make a really good point here: mandating preprints would be an easy step funders could take immediately that would change the publishing landscape without all the financial wrangling that has slowed down more complex schemes such as Plan S.
What is it with the terrible names in the academic publishing world though, as if diamond/green/whatever and cOAlition weren’t unclear and ugly enough, now we get the Plan family?
Replies (1)
-
@aj_boston@hcommons.social 2024-03-31 00:10
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org @villavelius@mastodon.online @mattjhodgkinson@scicomm.xyz @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @brembs@mastodon.social If I may offer this commentary I wrote this past winter about funders adopting Plan-U: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/policy-preprints-peer-review-arthur-aj-boston-o0qwc/