Plan S: An Economist's Perspective

Armstrong, Mark (2021): Plan S: An Economist's Perspective.

Abstract

Many scholarly journals charge high prices to research libraries and generate high profits. Open access regulation, in its various forms, can mitigate this problem. This essay examines a particular policy, "Plan S", which aims broadly to require regulated authors to publish their research in open access journals, which among other drawbacks of the policy greatly limits their publishing options.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Scholarly journals; open access; two-sided markets; regulation; Plan S
• Subjects: D - Microeconomics > D4 - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design > D42 - Monopoly; H - Public Economics > H4 - Publicly Provided Goods > H41 - Public Goods; I - Health, Education, and Welfare > I2 - Education and Research Institutions > I23 - Higher Education ; Research Institutions; L - Industrial Organization > L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance > L13 - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets; L - Industrial Organization > L5 - Regulation and Industrial Policy > L50 - General

References

Armstrong, M. (2002), `The theory of access pricing and interconnection', in Handbook of Telecommunications Economics vol. 1 (Cave, Majumdar and Vogelsang, eds.), pp. 295--384, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Armstrong, M. (2006), `Competition in two-sided markets', Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 37(3), pp. 668--691.

Armstrong, M. (2015), `Opening access to research', Economic Journal, vol. 125(586), pp. F1--F30.

Attema, A., W. Brouwer and J. Van Exel (2014), `Your right arm for a publication in AER?', Economic Inquiry, vol. 32(1), pp. 495--502.

Bagues, M., M. Sylos-Labini and N. Zinovyeva (2019), `A walk on the wild side: `Predatory' journals and information asymmetries in scientific evaluations', Research Policy, vol. 48(2), pp. 462--477.

Bergstrom, T. (2001), `Free labor for costly journals?', Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 15(3), pp. 183--190.

Brown, P., M. Eisen and H. Varmus (2003), `Why PLoS became a publisher', PLoS Biology, vol. 1(1), pp. 1--2.

Buranyi, S. (2017), `Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?', The Guardian (27 June 2017).

Caillaud, B., and B. Jullien (2003), `Chicken & egg: Competition among intermediation service providers', Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 34(2), pp. 309--328.

Ellison, G. (2011), `Is peer review in decline?', Economic Inquiry, vol. 49(3), pp. 635--657.

Enserink, M. (2018), `European funders seek to end reign of paywalled journals', Science, vol. 361(6406), pp. 957--958.

Heckman, J., and Moktan, S. (2020), `Publishing and promotion in economics: The tyranny of the top five', Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 58(2), pp. 419--470.

House of Commons (2004), Scientific Publications: Free for all? A report of the Science and Technology Committee, London: The Stationary Office.

Jeon, D.-S., and J.-C. Rochet (2010), `The pricing of academic journals: a two-sided market perspective', American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, vol. 2(2), pp. 222--255.

Larivière, V., S. Haustein and P. Mongeon (2015), `The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era', PLOS One, vol. 10(6).

Rochet, J.-C., and J. Tirole (2003), `Platform competition in two-sided markets', Journal of the European Economic Association, vol. 1(4), pp. 990-1029.

Rysman, M. (2009), `The economics of two-sided markets', Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 23(3), pp. 125--143.

Schiltz, M. (2018), `Science without publication paywalls: COAlition S for the realisation for full and immediate Open Access", PLOS Biology. vol. 16(9).

Shavell, S. (2010), `Should copyright of academic works be abolished?', Journal of Legal Analysis, vol. 2(1), pp. 301--358.

Walker, T. (1998), `Free internet access to traditional journals: Can scientists find ways to share published research without high costs?', American Scientist vol. 86(5), pp. 463--471.