1.1. Are you in receipt of funding from an organisation which has implemented a Plan S-aligned Open Access policy? Required Yes No Don't know a.1.a. Which research funding organisations do you receive grant funding from? b.1.b. Which Plan S organisations do you receive grant funding from? Please select between 1 and 10 answers. Academy of Finland (AKA) Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP) Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation European Commission (Horizon Europe Framework Programme) Fonds de Recherche du Québec (FRQ) Formas (Sweden) FORTE (Sweden) French National Research Agency (ANR) Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), The Foundation for Science and Technology Portugal Higher Council for Science and Technology (HCST, Jordan) Howard Hughes Medical Institute Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR) National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN, Italy) National Science and Technology Council (NSTC, Zambia) National Science Centre, Poland (NCN) Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) Research Council of Norway (RCN) Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS) Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) Templeton World Charity Foundation (TWCF) United Kingdom Research & Innovation (UKRI) Vinnova (Sweden) Wellcome World Health Organization (WHO)
b.1.b. Which Plan S organisations do you receive grant funding from? Please select between 1 and 10 answers. Academy of Finland (AKA) Aligning Science Across Parkinson’s (ASAP) Austrian Science Fund (FWF) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation European Commission (Horizon Europe Framework Programme) Fonds de Recherche du Québec (FRQ) Formas (Sweden) FORTE (Sweden) French National Research Agency (ANR) Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT), The Foundation for Science and Technology Portugal Higher Council for Science and Technology (HCST, Jordan) Howard Hughes Medical Institute Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR) National Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN, Italy) National Science and Technology Council (NSTC, Zambia) National Science Centre, Poland (NCN) Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) Research Council of Norway (RCN) Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS) Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC) Templeton World Charity Foundation (TWCF) United Kingdom Research & Innovation (UKRI) Vinnova (Sweden) Wellcome World Health Organization (WHO)
3.3. How would you describe yourself, professionally? (What is your job role) Required PhD student Early Career Researcher in academia* Senior Career Researcher in academia Other e.g., librarian, academic support/administrative, industry-based researcher Other (not listed) * Typically, a researcher who is within 8 years of the award of their PhD and transitioning towards independence, is defined as an Early Career Researcher.
4.4. Have you submitted any research papers for publication in 2021 or 2022? Required Yes No a.4.a. Have you found a Plan S compliant route to publish Open Access? Yes No I don't know if my route to publish is compliant i.4.a.i. Why not? My funder did not mandate being Plan S compliant My journal of choice was non-compliant I don’t support Plan S The journal I submitted my paper to ‘declined’ to publish it ii.4.a.ii. Which routes have you used? Green (Repository) Gold (OA Journal or Transformative Agreement - funded route) Diamond (OA Journal- no cost route) Don't know iii.4.a.iii. What was your experience of the submission process? Please choose one statement that applies to you I found the process was clear and didn’t take too much of my time. I found the process was complex and time-consuming, but I didn’t mind. I found the process was too complex and time-consuming. None of the above – I will comment at the end of the survey If you have submitted more than one research paper for publication during 2021/22 you may wish to use this last option to describe your experiences, with reference to those above. This part of the survey uses a table of questions, view as separate questions instead? a.4.a.iii.a. Please choose if you agree or disagree with the statements below: Error Error AgreeDisagree My institution / library provided adequate support for me to be compliant with my funder's Plan S-aligned Open Access Policy My funder(s) provided sufficient guidance on their Plan S-aligned Open Access Policy The cOAlition S website provided good resources to support me in being compliant. b.4.b. Since January 2021, have any of your published research papers been embargoed (behind a paywall) for any period of time? Yes No Don't know
a.4.a. Have you found a Plan S compliant route to publish Open Access? Yes No I don't know if my route to publish is compliant i.4.a.i. Why not? My funder did not mandate being Plan S compliant My journal of choice was non-compliant I don’t support Plan S The journal I submitted my paper to ‘declined’ to publish it ii.4.a.ii. Which routes have you used? Green (Repository) Gold (OA Journal or Transformative Agreement - funded route) Diamond (OA Journal- no cost route) Don't know iii.4.a.iii. What was your experience of the submission process? Please choose one statement that applies to you I found the process was clear and didn’t take too much of my time. I found the process was complex and time-consuming, but I didn’t mind. I found the process was too complex and time-consuming. None of the above – I will comment at the end of the survey If you have submitted more than one research paper for publication during 2021/22 you may wish to use this last option to describe your experiences, with reference to those above. This part of the survey uses a table of questions, view as separate questions instead? a.4.a.iii.a. Please choose if you agree or disagree with the statements below: Error Error AgreeDisagree My institution / library provided adequate support for me to be compliant with my funder's Plan S-aligned Open Access Policy My funder(s) provided sufficient guidance on their Plan S-aligned Open Access Policy The cOAlition S website provided good resources to support me in being compliant.
i.4.a.i. Why not? My funder did not mandate being Plan S compliant My journal of choice was non-compliant I don’t support Plan S The journal I submitted my paper to ‘declined’ to publish it
ii.4.a.ii. Which routes have you used? Green (Repository) Gold (OA Journal or Transformative Agreement - funded route) Diamond (OA Journal- no cost route) Don't know
iii.4.a.iii. What was your experience of the submission process? Please choose one statement that applies to you I found the process was clear and didn’t take too much of my time. I found the process was complex and time-consuming, but I didn’t mind. I found the process was too complex and time-consuming. None of the above – I will comment at the end of the survey If you have submitted more than one research paper for publication during 2021/22 you may wish to use this last option to describe your experiences, with reference to those above. This part of the survey uses a table of questions, view as separate questions instead? a.4.a.iii.a. Please choose if you agree or disagree with the statements below: Error Error AgreeDisagree My institution / library provided adequate support for me to be compliant with my funder's Plan S-aligned Open Access Policy My funder(s) provided sufficient guidance on their Plan S-aligned Open Access Policy The cOAlition S website provided good resources to support me in being compliant.
This part of the survey uses a table of questions, view as separate questions instead? a.4.a.iii.a. Please choose if you agree or disagree with the statements below: Error Error AgreeDisagree My institution / library provided adequate support for me to be compliant with my funder's Plan S-aligned Open Access Policy My funder(s) provided sufficient guidance on their Plan S-aligned Open Access Policy The cOAlition S website provided good resources to support me in being compliant.
b.4.b. Since January 2021, have any of your published research papers been embargoed (behind a paywall) for any period of time? Yes No Don't know
5.5. Are you aware of the Rights Retention Strategy (RRS)? Required Yes No The Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) ensures that researchers who have been funded by a cOAlition S Organisation can retain the rights to use their own work as they wish, and will always be able to honour their funders’ Open Access (OA) policy. This is achieved by requiring researchers to inform publishers, that an Author Accepted Manuscript (AAM) arising from their submission, carries a CC BY licence, in accordance with their grant conditions. They do this simply by including a set wording, supplied by their funder, in their submission. 4 things you should know about the Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) Blog Post (includes example RRS wording) a.5.a. Have you submitted a research paper for publication which included Rights Retention wording? Yes No i.5.a.i. What happened when you did this? Please select one statement which best describes your experience The publisher accepted the manuscript for review with the RR wording (i.e., prior notice of the CC BY licence being applied) The publisher rerouted / proposed rerouting my paper to a journal which was fully Open Access; APCs were then applied. The publisher required me to sign a publishing contract which specified that my manuscript could only be shared after a defined embargo has passed and/or with a licence that was not aligned with Plan S principles. The publisher required me to contractually agree to pay an APC at the point of submission. The publisher rerouted / proposed rerouting my paper to a journal which was fully Open Access but waived the APCs. The publisher accepted the manuscript for review with the RR wording but then issued a takedown notice later. The publisher took another action (please describe) a.5.a.i.a. Please describe: ii.5.a.ii. Why not? Please select one of the following statements which best describes your experience: I didn’t understand why I needed to use the Rights Retention (RR) wording, but I did comply with Plan S I didn’t comply with Plan S The publisher did not accept my position on the RRS and so I removed the RR wording from my paper. I didn’t know about the RRS when I published, but I intend to use the RR wording in the future.
a.5.a. Have you submitted a research paper for publication which included Rights Retention wording? Yes No i.5.a.i. What happened when you did this? Please select one statement which best describes your experience The publisher accepted the manuscript for review with the RR wording (i.e., prior notice of the CC BY licence being applied) The publisher rerouted / proposed rerouting my paper to a journal which was fully Open Access; APCs were then applied. The publisher required me to sign a publishing contract which specified that my manuscript could only be shared after a defined embargo has passed and/or with a licence that was not aligned with Plan S principles. The publisher required me to contractually agree to pay an APC at the point of submission. The publisher rerouted / proposed rerouting my paper to a journal which was fully Open Access but waived the APCs. The publisher accepted the manuscript for review with the RR wording but then issued a takedown notice later. The publisher took another action (please describe) a.5.a.i.a. Please describe: ii.5.a.ii. Why not? Please select one of the following statements which best describes your experience: I didn’t understand why I needed to use the Rights Retention (RR) wording, but I did comply with Plan S I didn’t comply with Plan S The publisher did not accept my position on the RRS and so I removed the RR wording from my paper. I didn’t know about the RRS when I published, but I intend to use the RR wording in the future.
i.5.a.i. What happened when you did this? Please select one statement which best describes your experience The publisher accepted the manuscript for review with the RR wording (i.e., prior notice of the CC BY licence being applied) The publisher rerouted / proposed rerouting my paper to a journal which was fully Open Access; APCs were then applied. The publisher required me to sign a publishing contract which specified that my manuscript could only be shared after a defined embargo has passed and/or with a licence that was not aligned with Plan S principles. The publisher required me to contractually agree to pay an APC at the point of submission. The publisher rerouted / proposed rerouting my paper to a journal which was fully Open Access but waived the APCs. The publisher accepted the manuscript for review with the RR wording but then issued a takedown notice later. The publisher took another action (please describe) a.5.a.i.a. Please describe:
ii.5.a.ii. Why not? Please select one of the following statements which best describes your experience: I didn’t understand why I needed to use the Rights Retention (RR) wording, but I did comply with Plan S I didn’t comply with Plan S The publisher did not accept my position on the RRS and so I removed the RR wording from my paper. I didn’t know about the RRS when I published, but I intend to use the RR wording in the future.
6.6. Do you believe that publishing your research findings in line with Plan S will have an impact on your career trajectory? Required Yes No Don't know a.6.a. Please select the option which best supports your response: More people will be able to see my research and ideas, resulting in more citations and greater recognition in my field. More collaborations will arise due to a wider and more diverse audience seeing my research. My research will be seen by more people which is good, although this will require more administrative effort by me. Being Plan S compliant, I feel there are less options to publish in traditionally competitive journals. Being Plan S compliant may negatively affect my chances of promotion/tenure/grant funding. Publishing in a Plan S compliant way will put unnecessary financial and administrative burden on me. None of the above are relevant to me and I will comment at the end of the survey.
a.6.a. Please select the option which best supports your response: More people will be able to see my research and ideas, resulting in more citations and greater recognition in my field. More collaborations will arise due to a wider and more diverse audience seeing my research. My research will be seen by more people which is good, although this will require more administrative effort by me. Being Plan S compliant, I feel there are less options to publish in traditionally competitive journals. Being Plan S compliant may negatively affect my chances of promotion/tenure/grant funding. Publishing in a Plan S compliant way will put unnecessary financial and administrative burden on me. None of the above are relevant to me and I will comment at the end of the survey.
7.7. Please provide any comments which you feel may be helpful as we monitor the impact of Plan S and endeavour to improve user experience. Optional Your answer should be no more than 500 characters long.
