Here’s a bold statement: The future of open access publishing hangs in the balance, and Coalition S is stepping up to ensure it doesn’t collapse under its own weight. In a move that’s both ambitious and necessary, this international group of research funders and stakeholders has unveiled a new strategy for 2026-30, zeroing in on the financial sustainability of open access scholarly publishing. But here’s where it gets controversial: as the publishing landscape grows increasingly complex and costly, can open access truly thrive without a radical rethink of how it’s funded and managed?
In a strategy paper released on November 12, Coalition S—originally formed in 2018 to push for full and immediate open access—outlines three key priorities. These aren’t just tweaks; they’re a fundamental reevaluation of how scholarly communication operates. The group, which started as a primarily European initiative, has since grown into a global network. Yet, earlier this year, it faced a shakeup when two senior leaders resigned, sparking questions about its direction. Lidia Borrell-Damián, secretary-general of Science Europe and Coalition S chair, reassured critics that these departures were part of a “natural” strategic evolution, acknowledging that the publishing landscape has shifted dramatically since 2018.
And this is the part most people miss: Coalition S isn’t just about making research papers free to read. It’s about building a system that’s transparent, equitable, and trustworthy. Mari Sundli Tveit, chief executive of the Research Council of Norway and chair of the Coalition S leaders group, emphasized that members remain “determined to accelerate full and immediate open access.” But she added a critical layer: “True open science requires transparency in processes, equity in participation, and unwavering commitment to the trustworthiness of scientific knowledge.”
Among the new objectives is a pledge to support organizations in using their funding and infrastructure investments to create a scholarly communication system that’s rapid, open, trustworthy, and equitable. In the first year of the new framework, the group will focus on exploring financially sustainable publishing models while monitoring their progress. This includes examining new funding mechanisms for open access and tracking their financial impact.
But let’s pause for a moment: Is it realistic to expect a one-size-fits-all solution? The group plans to collaborate with policymakers and research communities to develop policies, but the devil is in the details. How will they balance the needs of smaller institutions with those of larger, better-funded ones? And what about the role of commercial publishers, who often profit from the current system?
Additional priorities include strengthening the foundations for full, immediate, sustainable, and equitable open access and supporting digital infrastructures that enable it. Borrell-Damián noted that these priorities reflect a commitment to addressing the “full spectrum of contemporary scholarly communication” and the urgent need for more sustainable models.
The strategy’s next phase, set for 2028, will depend on a review by Coalition S leaders after the first phase. But here’s the burning question: Can Coalition S truly deliver on its promises, or will it face pushback from entrenched interests?
What do you think? Is Coalition S on the right track, or are they overlooking critical challenges? Share your thoughts in the comments—let’s spark a conversation that could shape the future of open access.
