Yeah, publicly funded science should be freely available to the public, the publishers are money grubbing scalps, their fees are exorbitant, the bundling scheme makes cable TV pushers seem like a nice crowd, and it's a disaster that universities in poorer countries suffer from lack of access to important articles. I totally agree about that part. But before we endorse plan S, there are two things that must be clarified:
Here are some of my concerns, in no particular order:
Personally, I think both sides of the debate are guilty ow producing straw men, and this lack of nuance is terribly frustrating! Yes, I condemn certain publishers for dubious sales methods, but their academic integrity is good. It's not good v. evil, it's a complex situation and it deserves proper consideration. Not just throwing it all over board and hoping for the best.
Here are a few things I believe we should do, which would probably alleviate some of the problems. First of all, reduce copyright duration! For scientific material, it makes no sense that a publisher should have unique rights half a century after the death of whoever wrote the paper. Second, there should be possibilities of hybrids and of 'buying out' an article for a predetermined price. Say you want to publish something, but you cannot afford to do it by open access - well, what if you pay somewhat less, and your article becomes open access in, say, five years time instead? Pay even less, and it becomes 7 years, a little more and get 3. Not ideal, but if you can't afford the whole hog, then this is certainly better. And, anyone can pay the publishers the remaining sum to get the article out: If I decide your works is too awesome to be unavailable to the general public, then I can start a funding campaign and 'buy out' your work. Or some other solutions down this alley. The point is, I think plan S is needlessly drastic. There might be less severe solutions at hand. And, quite frankly, the possible long term consequences should be considered, not ignored.