[2][3] A 2012 survey of libraries by the Association of Learned, Professional, and Society Publishers on the likelihood of journal cancellations in cases where most of the content was made freely accessible after six months suggests there would be a major negative impact on subscriptions,[4] but this result has been debated.
If the value publishers add to the publication process beyond peer review (e.g. in typesetting, dissemination and archiving) were worth the price asked, people would still be willing to pay for the journal even if the unformatted postprint is available elsewhere.
[9] Publishers have, in the past, lifted embargo periods for specific research topics in times of humanitarian crises, or have been asked to do so (e.g. outbreaks of Zika and Ebola[note 4]).
[9] Evidence suggests that traditional journals can peacefully coexist with zero-embargo self-archiving policies,[10][11][12][13][14] and the relative benefits to both publishers and authors via increased dissemination and citations outweigh any putative negative impacts.
In a reaction to Plan S, Highwire suggested that three of their society publishers make all author manuscripts freely available upon submission and state that they do not believe this practice has contributed to subscription decline.