Similar to CUP and IOP, Sage, and Springer Nature, many UK institutions have signed a contract to fund Wiley's publishing activities for four more years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

Furthermore, the financial credit cap for the Wiley deal is operationally low, resulting in additional expenditure for institutions at the end of the calendar year when open access support funds are running low. This additional cost is not sustainable for many institutions and unintentionally creates inequitable access to no-additional-cost publishing.

UK institutions have been through several terms of the Springer Compact deal and continue to negotiate amendments and additional terms with added expense. The Springer Compact deal delivers no-additional-cost publishing for an upfront commitment of funds by institutions. Regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories institutions continue to support Springer Nature's publishing activities. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

Similar to CUP and IOP, many UK institutions have signed a contract to fund Sage's publishing activities for three years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

Similar to CUP, some UK institutions have signed a contract to fund IOP's publishing activities for four years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

Many UK institutions have signed a contract to fund CUP's publishing activities for four years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

What is allowed = what is legal (i.e. copyright law) and what the journal is willing to publish or reject. If authors are told they should consult the journal and the only response is the journal's own policy, assuming it contradicts the right retention strategy (RRS), the Publisher/Editor/Production Editor will be misinforming the author and denying them their legal rights.

It's my interpretation that the funders agree which is why Wellcome Trust wrote to publishers asking if they would change their policies to reflect the rights retention strategy.

This misrepresents the situation. Authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) have been shared on institutional and subject repositories for around two decades, with greater prevalence in the last decade. Despite this the version of record (VoR) is still valued and preserves the integrity of the scholarly record. The integrity of the VoR continues to be maintained by the publisher and where well-run repository management are made aware, corrections can be reflected in a repository. The solution to this problem is the publisher taking their responsibility to preserving the integrity of the scholarly record seriously and notifying repositories, not asserting that authors should not exercise their right to apply a prior license to their AAM.

So far as I know this is not tested or based on any evidence. If the publishers think an open accepted manuscript would undermine the version of record, it doesn't demonstrate much confidence in their added value to me.

It’s not entirely clear what is meant by this statement. This is incredibly inflammatory rhetoric for most academics who take academic freedom very seriously - for very good reasons. However, the academic has the freedom not to accept a grant if they fundamentally disagree with the funder’s desired approach to effective dissemination of the research they support. Furthermore, the rights retention strategy (RRS) is in place to give the authors more freedom of choice over what happens to the version of record (VoR). Because of the RRS, the author can submit to the most appropriate journal for the research regardless of whether it explicitly provides a compliant route to publication (assuming the journal takes the submission forwards) or whether or not the author can access funds to pay a publication charge (APC) in a hybrid subscription journal.

This is an untested statement and does not take into account the perspectives of those contributing to the publishers' revenue. The Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) relies on the author's accepted manuscript (AAM) and for an AAM to exist and to have the added value from peer-review a Version of Record (VoR) must exist. Libraries recognise this fundamental principle and continue to subscribe to individual journals of merit and support lucrative deals with publishers. From some (not all) librarians' and possibly funders' perspectives these statements could undermine any mutual respect.

The publishers below will not support the Plan S rights retention strategy (RRS). In its simplest form the RRS re-asserts the authors' rights as the rights holder to assign a copyright license of their choice (CC BY informed by their funding agency) to all versions of their research/intellectual output. In the case of the RRS states that the author should apply a CC BY license to their accepted manuscript (AAM) if they cannot afford to pay article processing charges or choose not to apply a CC BY license to the Version of Record (VoR), which they are free to do. Therefore, this statement is either saying the undersigned will not carry publications forward to publication (most appropriate approach), or they will not support the same copyright laws which fundamentally protects their rights and revenue after a copyright transfer agreement is signed by the rightsholder.

Academy of Dental Materials

Acoustical Society of America

AIP Publishing

American Academy of Ophthalmology

American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus

American Chemical Society

American Gastroenterological Association American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Medical Association

American Physical Society

American Society for Investigative Pathology

American Society for Radiation Oncology

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Hematology

American Society of Clinical Oncology

American Association of Physicists in Medicine

American Association of Physics Teachers

AVS – The Society for Science and Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing

Brill

British Journal of Anaesthesia

Budrich Academic Press

Cambridge Media

Cambridge University Press

Canadian Cardiovascular Society

De Gruyter

Duncker & Humblot

Elsevier

Emerald

Erich Schmidt Verlag

French Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Frommann-Holzboog Verlag

Future Science Group 

Hogrefe

International Association for Gondwana Research

IOP Publishing

Journal of Nursing Regulation

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT).

Julius Klinkhardt KG

La Découverte

Laser Institute America

Materials Research Forum LLC

The Optical Society (OSA)

Pearson Benelux

SAGE Publishing

Society of Rheology

Springer Nature

Taylor & Francis Group

The Geological Society of America

Thieme Group

Uitgeverij Verloren

Verlag Barbara Budrich

Vittorio Klostermann

wbv Media

Wiley

Wolters Kluwer

Would the definition here be "all content in the journal must follow the oa principles set forth by plan s" or "the journal offers oa possibilities". I would guess the former due to the highlighted section below about publication paywalls.