Slide 1: Title This paper I am going to present is a joint work of Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, who is the Regius Professor of Geology Emeritus, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom and a member of the Governing Board of the International Science Council (ISC). The work also draws heavily from the input of the ISC steering group of the ISC project of Future of Scientific Publishing, consisting of experts across the globe. Slide 2: Overview Science has the greatest impact when its results are made openly available as a public good, and this is possible because of the publication system that science follows. Therefore, we argue that the achievement of OA is not just necessary but the main driver of OS. However, much resultant knowledge, rather than being freely available as the endpoint of scientific workflow, is gifted by scientists to commercial publishers and only publicly available on payment for access. How has this happened? How the digital revolution has presented an opportunity to take control of the publication-the role of the OA movement Progress towards OA What's not working and how policies and practices can address these issues Disclaimer: Here, science is not a discipline but a method of inquiry. Slide 3: The Dawn of Scientific Publishing, OS and Public Good Science used to be practiced in secrecy; however, the late 17th century saw a new innovation, scientific journals, and robust mechanisms of peer scrutiny of the evidence provided against the new knowledge. The invention of the printing press by Gutenberg was also another driving force of the success of this mechanism. As Paul David pointed out in his 2003 essay, "The Historical Origins of Open Science", a significant driving force behind this transition was the collective belief that society would gain from a unified and open pursuit of knowledge. The "open science" practice began in this era, rooted in the norms of information sharing and treating new findings as "public good". This approach capitalized on the inherent "public goods" characteristics of information, allowing the shared use and reuse of knowledge, which led to the rapid expansion of the collective knowledge pool. Slide 4: Evolving context After WWII, it was evident that scientific inventions made a significant difference in human lives. Take alone the case of penicillin; numerous lives were injured compared to the previous war. Economic theories also proved that it is not just capital or labor supply that drives economic growth, but science & technology play an important role. So, scientific endeavors became more institutionalized; states started to fund research. This resulted in a multi-fold increase in scientific activities and the need for more journals to convey all the new knowledge created. Publishing activities, which were previously handled solely by scientific societies, now saw the entrance of commercial entities… High subscription Research quality equated with JIF, h index, Publish or perish-reproducibility crises Slide 5: Open Access Movement: A Paradigm Shift Origins and motivations behind the Open Access (OA) movement Key declarations: Budapest, Bethesda, and Berlin Objectives: Reshaping scholarly communication, democratizing access Slide 6: Pathways to Open Access Gold OA: Immediate open access, APCs involved Diamond OA: No charges for authors and readers Green OA: Self-archiving in repositories, embargo periods Slide 7: Global Progress in Open Access Examples of OA progress: DOAJ, EU policies, U.S. federal agencies Regional successes: Latin America (SciELO, Redalyc), Africa (AJOL, African Open Science Platform), Asia (initiatives in China and India) Slide 8: The newer open-access publishing models have brought more unique challenges. Now, there are open-access journals that are free for everyone to read, but researchers need to pay a hefty amount as an article processing charge (APC) to publish their work. APC can be as high as USD 11,000 to publish a single article. The other serious problem of the current publishing systems is journal prestige and impact factors as the proxy measure of quality. The inefficiencies of the system, such as delays in publishing, inaccessibility of data, restrictive copyright regimes, and challenges in reproducibility, are some of the other issues that need immediate attention. Plan S: Impact on Scientific Publishing Landscape Concept of "Subscribe to Open" (S2O) PLOS Global Equity Program- Through this program, institutions can partner with PLOS by paying an annual flat fee for specific journals, allowing researchers from that institution to publish in journals such as PLOS Climate, PLOS Global Public Health, and PLOS Water without paying any APCs. This fee structure is designed considering the institution's historical research output in the related field and aligning the costs based on the World Bank lending tier of the respective country. Slide 9: Innovations – Persistent Digital Identifier (PID): A Persistent Digital Identifier (PID) is a long-lasting reference to a digital object, such as digital documents or datasets. While web addresses or URLs may change over time, PIDs ensure that the referenced items remain accessible even if their location or metadata are altered. The most common example of PIDs is the Digital Object Identifier (DOI), overseen by the International DOI Foundation (IDF). DOIs are used to provide a permanent link to scholarly articles, datasets, and other research outputs. Crossref and DataCite are the two major organizations that produce DOIs in the scholarly communication domain. Institutions maintaining a collection of resources can also generate PIDs; the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) allocates a Unique ID to every term. ORCID iD is an example of a persistent identifier for a researcher (person). Research Organization Registry (ROR) is a global, community-led registry of open persistent identifiers for research organizations. Using PIDs ensures stable links to research output and researchers, thus fostering more reliable citation practices and facilitating better tracking and management of digital resources Slide 10: International Science Council's Eight Principles List of the Eight Principles equitable and efficient scientific publishing system. Universal Open Access: Ensuring open access to research articles for both authors and readers is essential for scientific progress. Barriers related to financial capacity, institutional affiliations, language, and geography must be removed to foster inclusivity and equal opportunity. This principle advocates for the democratization of access to information, allowing everyone to engage with and benefit from scientific knowledge. Open Licenses for Reuse: Research publications should carry open licenses, enabling further development from existing work. While restrictive licenses allow monopolization over research data by the publishers, open licenses enable reuse by allowing text and data mining, potentially accelerating the pace of discovery. Rigorous Peer Review: The integrity of science is heavily dependent on rigorous peer review. A robust and continuous peer review system should be the backbone of publishing to ensure that reproducible and accurate scientific findings are added to the public domain. This helps in maintaining trust in the science. The publishing system needs innovative solutions to the evolving demands and challenges of keeping up with quality in the peer review process. Open peer review systems present an opportunity to make the system efficient, scalable, and transparent. Accessibility of Data and Observations: Making data and observations from scientific work available for peer scrutiny is essential for ensuring the reliability and reproducibility of the research. The underlying data of a research paper should be accessible under FAIR (Findable–Accessible–Interoperable–Reusable) principles. Preservation for Future Access: Records of science aren't just for the present, and it's important to ensure access for future generations. Rather than a sole "version of record," keeping the "record of versions" would help enhance the accessibility of scientific methods and outcomes. Respecting Traditions and Bibliodiversity: Different disciplines and regions may have unique publication traditions. By respecting these diversities in knowledge production and dissemination, we could develop a richer, more varied scientific discourse. Adaptive Publication Systems: Publication systems should be adaptive to the opportunities technological advancements provide, ensuring that the scientific publishing process remains efficient, relevant, and in sync with contemporary needs and opportunities. Accountable Governance: The processes governing the dissemination of scientific knowledge should be answerable to the researchers who produce the knowledge. This ensures that the interests of the scientific community are prioritized over the increasing hold of commercial entities.