Scientific research, particularly the form of dissemination, has become a lucrative business for large publishers. It is known that journals that claim to have the greatest impact (number of citations) charge large sums for the publication of an article. Articles that are generated by research funded by public institutions and/or non-profit foundations. But publishers, in general, charge for publishing the results, converted into a paper, and then charge for downloading a paper from their websites.

For several years, many European scientists and agencies have been promoting an “Open Access” policy for publications generated in centers such as Universities and Foundations. This is how on September 4, 2018, reports appeared worldwide about the strong attack by several European scientific research agencies, regulating a decided open access policy for the scientific publications that they finance. The initiative of the European agencies is known as “plan s” (https://www.scienceeurope.org/coalition-s/ ).

In this article, which was also reported by La Tercera (https://www.latercera.com/tendencias/noticia/revistas-cientificas-alerta-restriccion-publicacion-articulos-pagados/307299/), it is noted that as of 2020, scientific research, funded by the 11 European agencies - European Commission on Open Access, the agencies of the French, British and Dutch funders, the national agencies in Austria, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, the research councils in Italy and Sweden - must ensure free and immediate access after the papers are published.

The measure restricts funding for major journals such as Nature, Science, Cell and The Lancet.

In the statement, they announced that the six or twelve month delays that many subscription journals require before a document becomes “Open Access” will no longer be allowed. Science Europe president Marc Schiltz said “we think this could create a turning point [...] “really, the idea was to take a big, decisive step, not to create another statement or an expression of intent.”

Obviously, the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Editors is concerned about the measure and, according to them, this measure “potentially undermines the entire system of research publications.”

On the other hand, on September 12, 2018, Nature Magazine published an article in which, in some way, it questions the scientific publication system as we know it today. The publication titled “houses of scientists publish a paper every five days” (http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06185-8) evidence that thousands of scientists publish up to 72 articles annually, an excessive amount for a human, no matter how intelligent and hardworking. The work describes how the “most prolific scientists” do it. Scopus was searched for authors who published more than 72 papers (the equivalent of one paper every 5 days) in a calendar year between 2000 and 2016, a figure many would consider incredibly prolific.

The new European policy on the way and means by which the results of scientific research are published is already taking effect in Chile. A sample of this change can already be seen in the policy of the Superior Council of Fondecyt to evaluate Postdoctoral projects (http://www.conicyt.cl/fondecyt/2018/09/14/fondecyt-cambia-su-forma-de-evaluar-investigadores-en-la-nueva-convocatoria-a-proyectos-de-postdoctorado/).

For 2019, CONICYT has announced that "the new mechanism expands the type of scientific milestones that can be declared in the application, including, in addition to scientific productivity, the impact that the applicants' research has had outside the strictly academic sphere. This undoubtedly marks the first milestone in the effects of the growing movement on the way to measure scientific productivity and the irreversible path towards open access of all publications financed by States and/or non-profit foundations.

Eduardo Notte Cuello
La Serena, October 2018