The paper is a philosophical commentary on Plan I (10.5281/zenodo.4468511), inspired by Kant's Perpetual Peace distinction between: the "moral politician" who, in order to overcome war, only selects means that are compatible with the categorical imperative, or, in less Kantian terms, with human rights;</li> the "political moralist" who, while claiming to share the same purpose of the former, believes that it can only be achieved by war. In 1795, Kant aimed to overcome war by means of a worldwide federal republic, and invited us to think in a systemic perspective. Peace can be perpetual only if we are able to build an international sphere that is ruled by law rather than by force: winning one or more wars can issue a (provisional) period a peace, but preserves an environment still ruled by the principle of force. Likewise, paying commercial publishers to make scientific articles (really) public makes some articles accessible, but does not build an environment in which open science can flourish. Indeed, the very research assessment and copyright knot keeps on preserving the scientific publishing monopolies, by linking the quality of research to their journals and data. Plan I, on the other hand, challenges the very proprietary assessment and publishing system, and invites us, like Kant, to cope with closed science in a systemic perspective.

{"references": ["10.5281/zenodo.4468511"]}