{"id":93,"date":"2026-01-06T16:49:25","date_gmt":"2026-01-06T21:49:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/chapter\/open-access-mandates\/"},"modified":"2026-02-12T13:54:46","modified_gmt":"2026-02-12T18:54:46","slug":"open-access-mandates","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/chapter\/open-access-mandates\/","title":{"raw":"Open Access Mandates","rendered":"Open Access Mandates"},"content":{"raw":"As interest in and support for open access (OA) grows, funders and institutions have responded by enacting their own OA policies. These polices are an important force within the larger OA movement as they encourage and sometimes require researchers to make their research publications openly available. Critics of OA mandates express concern over policies that appear to dictate where and how authors can publish and often cite academic freedom as an argument against such policies. Balancing a desire to support OA with the need to support researcher choice can be complicated for funders and institutions. As a result, the success of OA mandates is unevenly distributed across geographical regions and organizational structures.\r\n

Europe is Leading the Pack<\/h2>\r\nIn Europe, where funding is very centralized, there has been a concentrated effort to operationalize a broad OA policy referred to as \u201cPlan S\u201d<\/a>. Plan S was put forward by\u00a0cOALition S<\/a>, a group of national research funding organisations supported by the European Commission and the European Research Council. Since its announcement in 2018, stakeholders in Europe and across the globe have shared both their support for and criticism against the project and the proposed implementation strategy. While its original objective was to reach complete OA for all funded research by 2021, the plan was pushed bac<\/a>k<\/a>\u00a0a year<\/a>\u00a0in order to give publishers time to ensure their publications would meet Plan S requirements for authors.\r\n\r\nOther concerns have emerged over Plan S and have been addressed by the addition of new principles. Despite these modifications, many are still worried about the consequences \u2013 both intended and unintended \u2013 that Plan S will have on the academic publishing ecosystem.\r\n\r\nIn January, 2023 cOAlition S reaffirmed an earlier commitment to discontinue support for \u201ctransformative journals\u201d \u2013 journals that were gradually moving from from subscription to OA models \u2013 by the end of 2024. Initially conceived as a stopgap measure to grant journals necessary time to transition to OA, there was some concern that Plan S would continue to support hybrid OA models in the face of publisher pressure to do so. The 2023 announcement confirmed that cOAlition S continued to \u201cfirmly oppose\u201d hybrid OA and would not be changing its implementation timelines.\r\n

Publishers Push Back<\/h3>\r\nThe impacts of Plan S are felt far beyond the European Union. European researchers publish widely across international journals and publishers alongside researchers from every part of the globe. It remains to see how these large publishers will adapt to plan S requirements and whether or not exceptions will be carved out for European researchers, or if they will completely transition to OA.\r\n\r\nIn early 2021, a group of over 50 publishers signed\u00a0a statement opposing a provision on authors\u2019 ownership rights put forward by Coalition S<\/a>. In the statement, the publishers expressed concern over Plan S\u2019s Rights Retention Strategy, under which funded authors could still publish in traditional subscription journals so long as they immediately made their article OA in a repository (via the green route to OA). Some publishers, notably Springer Nature, have so far refused to comply<\/a>\u00a0with this element of Plan S, making it clear to authors that they must choose a gold OA option if they want to meet Plan S obligations.\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n
Reflection \u2013 Should Governments Dictate How Academics Publish?<\/h5>\r\nIn April 2023, a\u00a0report surfaced\u00a0<\/a>that a leaked document revealed the Europe\u2019s Council of Ministers is close to\u00a0releasing a position paper\u00a0<\/a>calling on funders to make \u201cimmediate and unrestricted open access the default mode in publishing\u2026with no fees to authors.\u201d Proponents of OA are excited to see the EU take such a strong position in favor of platinum OA, but critics worry about mandating OA compliance and restricting researcher choice in their publication venue\r\n\r\nHow much control should funders have over researcher publication venue? Is mandated OA a step in the right direction, or government overreach?<\/td>\r\n
\"\"<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

North America and The Nelson Memo<\/h2>\r\nNorth America has seen a much more uneven growth of OA mandates and while many notable funders do require OA (for example: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation<\/a>,\u00a0National Institutes of Health<\/a>,\u00a0National Science Foundation<\/a>), many others do not.\r\n\r\nIndividual institutions also have OA policies in place, with MIT<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Harvard<\/a> being notable examples. The University of British Columbia does not currently have an OApolicy, but did issue a\u00a0position statement<\/a> in 2013 in support of OA.\r\n\r\nA comprehensive database of funder and organizational mandates from around the world can be found at\u00a0ROARMAP.<\/a>\r\n\r\nOn August 25, 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released\u00a0new guidelines<\/a>\u00a0on increased, expansive public access to the results of federally funded research. The guidelines, or the \u201cNelson Memo,\u201d acknowledges the need to learn from the positive outcomes of the accelerated rate of sharing research due to the COVID-19 pandemic and provides instruction to national funders to update their public access policies to ensure that all peer-reviewed scholarly publications resulting from federally funded research \u201care made freely available and publicly accessible by default in agency-designated repositories without any embargo or delay after publication.\u201d[footnote]Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2022, August\u202f25). Ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research (OSTP Public Access Memo). The White House. https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf[\/footnote]\r\n\r\nIt largely remains to be seen how this Memo will impact the transition to full scale OA in the US, but it is an important signal of shifting priorities and values within the US funding and scholarly publishing landscape.\r\n

Canada\u2019s Tri-Agency Open Access Policy<\/h2>\r\nThe\u00a0Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications<\/a> came into effect, with new requirements for grants awarded by the major Government of Canada granting agencies. The three granting agencies are the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).\r\n\r\nThe policy applies to all SSHRC and NSERC grants awarded after May 1,\u00a02015. CIHR grants have required open access compliance since January 1, 2008. The policy requires that all peer-reviewed journal publications arising from Tri-Agency-supported research are freely accessible online within 12 months of publication.\r\n\r\n \r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n
Dig Deeper<\/h5>\r\nTo learn more about the impact of OA mandates, review:\r\n\r\nLarivi\u00e8re, Vincent and Cassidy R. Sugimoto (2018). Do authors comply when funders enforce open access to research?<\/a><\/td>\r\n
\"\"<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n<\/div>\r\n ","rendered":"

As interest in and support for open access (OA) grows, funders and institutions have responded by enacting their own OA policies. These polices are an important force within the larger OA movement as they encourage and sometimes require researchers to make their research publications openly available. Critics of OA mandates express concern over policies that appear to dictate where and how authors can publish and often cite academic freedom as an argument against such policies. Balancing a desire to support OA with the need to support researcher choice can be complicated for funders and institutions. As a result, the success of OA mandates is unevenly distributed across geographical regions and organizational structures.<\/p>\n

Europe is Leading the Pack<\/h2>\n

In Europe, where funding is very centralized, there has been a concentrated effort to operationalize a broad OA policy referred to as \u201cPlan S\u201d<\/a>. Plan S was put forward by\u00a0cOALition S<\/a>, a group of national research funding organisations supported by the European Commission and the European Research Council. Since its announcement in 2018, stakeholders in Europe and across the globe have shared both their support for and criticism against the project and the proposed implementation strategy. While its original objective was to reach complete OA for all funded research by 2021, the plan was pushed bac<\/a>k<\/a>\u00a0a year<\/a>\u00a0in order to give publishers time to ensure their publications would meet Plan S requirements for authors.<\/p>\n

Other concerns have emerged over Plan S and have been addressed by the addition of new principles. Despite these modifications, many are still worried about the consequences \u2013 both intended and unintended \u2013 that Plan S will have on the academic publishing ecosystem.<\/p>\n

In January, 2023 cOAlition S reaffirmed an earlier commitment to discontinue support for \u201ctransformative journals\u201d \u2013 journals that were gradually moving from from subscription to OA models \u2013 by the end of 2024. Initially conceived as a stopgap measure to grant journals necessary time to transition to OA, there was some concern that Plan S would continue to support hybrid OA models in the face of publisher pressure to do so. The 2023 announcement confirmed that cOAlition S continued to \u201cfirmly oppose\u201d hybrid OA and would not be changing its implementation timelines.<\/p>\n

Publishers Push Back<\/h3>\n

The impacts of Plan S are felt far beyond the European Union. European researchers publish widely across international journals and publishers alongside researchers from every part of the globe. It remains to see how these large publishers will adapt to plan S requirements and whether or not exceptions will be carved out for European researchers, or if they will completely transition to OA.<\/p>\n

In early 2021, a group of over 50 publishers signed\u00a0a statement opposing a provision on authors\u2019 ownership rights put forward by Coalition S<\/a>. In the statement, the publishers expressed concern over Plan S\u2019s Rights Retention Strategy, under which funded authors could still publish in traditional subscription journals so long as they immediately made their article OA in a repository (via the green route to OA). Some publishers, notably Springer Nature, have so far refused to comply<\/a>\u00a0with this element of Plan S, making it clear to authors that they must choose a gold OA option if they want to meet Plan S obligations.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n
\n
Reflection \u2013 Should Governments Dictate How Academics Publish?<\/h5>\n

In April 2023, a\u00a0report surfaced\u00a0<\/a>that a leaked document revealed the Europe\u2019s Council of Ministers is close to\u00a0releasing a position paper\u00a0<\/a>calling on funders to make \u201cimmediate and unrestricted open access the default mode in publishing\u2026with no fees to authors.\u201d Proponents of OA are excited to see the EU take such a strong position in favor of platinum OA, but critics worry about mandating OA compliance and restricting researcher choice in their publication venue<\/p>\n

How much control should funders have over researcher publication venue? Is mandated OA a step in the right direction, or government overreach?<\/td>\n

\"\"<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

North America and The Nelson Memo<\/h2>\n

North America has seen a much more uneven growth of OA mandates and while many notable funders do require OA (for example: The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation<\/a>,\u00a0National Institutes of Health<\/a>,\u00a0National Science Foundation<\/a>), many others do not.<\/p>\n

Individual institutions also have OA policies in place, with MIT<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Harvard<\/a> being notable examples. The University of British Columbia does not currently have an OApolicy, but did issue a\u00a0position statement<\/a> in 2013 in support of OA.<\/p>\n

A comprehensive database of funder and organizational mandates from around the world can be found at\u00a0ROARMAP.<\/a><\/p>\n

On August 25, 2022, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released\u00a0new guidelines<\/a>\u00a0on increased, expansive public access to the results of federally funded research. The guidelines, or the \u201cNelson Memo,\u201d acknowledges the need to learn from the positive outcomes of the accelerated rate of sharing research due to the COVID-19 pandemic and provides instruction to national funders to update their public access policies to ensure that all peer-reviewed scholarly publications resulting from federally funded research \u201care made freely available and publicly accessible by default in agency-designated repositories without any embargo or delay after publication.\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n

It largely remains to be seen how this Memo will impact the transition to full scale OA in the US, but it is an important signal of shifting priorities and values within the US funding and scholarly publishing landscape.<\/p>\n

Canada\u2019s Tri-Agency Open Access Policy<\/h2>\n

The\u00a0Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications<\/a> came into effect, with new requirements for grants awarded by the major Government of Canada granting agencies. The three granting agencies are the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).<\/p>\n

The policy applies to all SSHRC and NSERC grants awarded after May 1,\u00a02015. CIHR grants have required open access compliance since January 1, 2008. The policy requires that all peer-reviewed journal publications arising from Tri-Agency-supported research are freely accessible online within 12 months of publication.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n
\n
Dig Deeper<\/h5>\n

To learn more about the impact of OA mandates, review:<\/p>\n

Larivi\u00e8re, Vincent and Cassidy R. Sugimoto (2018). Do authors comply when funders enforce open access to research?<\/a><\/td>\n

\"\"<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

  1. Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2022, August\u202f25). Ensuring free, immediate, and equitable access to federally funded research (OSTP Public Access Memo). The White House. https:\/\/www.whitehouse.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf ↵<\/a><\/li><\/ol><\/div>","protected":false},"author":1076,"menu_order":5,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-93","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":82,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/93","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1076"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/93\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":419,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/93\/revisions\/419"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/82"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/93\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=93"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=93"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.bccampus.ca\/openscholarship\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=93"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}