Open-access mandate
An open-access mandate is a policy requirement imposed by research funding agencies, universities, or governments that obligates recipients of public or institutional funds to disseminate their peer-reviewed scholarly outputs—typically journal articles—via free online availability without subscription barriers, often with associated rights for readers to reuse the material under permissive licenses.[1][2][3] These mandates emerged in the early 2000s amid growing concerns over the inaccessibility of taxpayer-funded research behind commercial publisher paywalls, with foundational institutional examples including Harvard University's 2008 faculty-adopted policy requiring deposit of articles in an open repository and the U.S. National Institutes of Health's 2008 public access policy mandating submission to PubMed Central within 12 months of publication.[4][5] Subsequent developments include Europe's Plan S initiative, launched in 2018 by cOAlition S—a consortium of national funders and philanthropies—aiming for immediate open access to publications from 2021 onward for supported research, influencing policies in countries like the UK and China.[6][7] Proponents argue that such mandates enhance public access to scientific knowledge, potentially accelerating innovation by broadening readership beyond affluent institutions, though empirical analyses reveal mixed outcomes: while some studies link open access to marginal increases in citations, rigorous evaluations of mandates like those from the NIH find no significant boost to overall academic output and primarily attribute gains to downstream technological applications rather than core research expansion.[8][9] Cost structures remain a defining feature, as mandates often shift expenses from reader-side subscriptions to author- or funder-paid article processing charges (APCs), which have escalated without proportionally reducing systemic publishing costs.[10][11] Controversies surrounding open-access mandates center on unintended consequences, including the proliferation of predatory journals that exploit APC models with lax or absent peer review, undermining scholarly rigor, and the failure to achieve equitable global access due to persistent APC barriers for underfunded researchers in developing regions.[12][13] Critics, drawing from economic first principles, contend that mandates disrupt established revenue streams for quality curation and dissemination without empirical proof of net societal gains, potentially eroding incentives for high-value publishing while academic institutions—often biased toward progressive access ideals—overlook these trade-offs in policy advocacy.[9][10] Despite these debates, mandates have become widespread, with over 1,000 tracked globally as of recent inventories, shaping a hybrid publishing landscape where compliance tools like preprint servers and repository deposits facilitate adherence.[14]Definition and Core Principles
Fundamental Requirements
Effective open-access mandates require researchers funded or employed by mandating entities to deposit the final peer-reviewed version of their scholarly articles in a designated institutional or subject repository, ensuring free public access without subscription barriers. These mandates distinguish between mere recommendations, which yield voluntary self-archiving rates of approximately 15-20%, and enforceable requirements that can achieve compliance rates exceeding 70% when properly designed.[15][16] Core to this is specifying the deposited version as the accepted manuscript post-peer review, rather than unrefereed preprints, to preserve scientific integrity while enabling immediate dissemination.[17] Timing of deposit is critical: mandates must stipulate immediate deposit upon notification of journal acceptance to prevent delays from publication processes, with the access status set to open immediately or after a maximal embargo of 6-12 months if required by publisher agreements.[15] To facilitate this, policies should include a rights-retention clause allowing non-exclusive distribution for non-commercial use, bypassing publisher embargoes where possible through immediate-deposit/immediate-access (ID/OA) or immediate-deposit/optional-embargo (ID/OE) mechanisms.[17] Repositories must support standardized metadata and formats for interoperability, such as the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH), enabling aggregation and searchability across services.[18] Effectiveness hinges on verifiability and enforcement, including monitoring compliance via annual reporting or integration with funding disbursement and performance evaluations, with no blanket opt-outs that undermine universality.[16] The MELIBEA evaluation framework quantifies mandate strength through eight weighted conditions—such as requiring deposit over recommendation, immediate timing, prohibition of opt-outs, and provisions for internal access during any embargo period—which empirical analysis links to higher deposit rates, as seen in institutions scoring above 80% where three key conditions (deposit timing, internal use rights, and opt-out restrictions) are optimized.[19][20] Absent these elements, mandates risk low uptake, as evidenced by global averages where only stronger policies correlate with measurable increases in open-access availability.[21]Underlying Rationales and Assumptions
Open-access mandates rest on the premise that barriers to accessing peer-reviewed research, such as subscription paywalls, impede the efficient dissemination and utilization of knowledge, particularly for work supported by public or philanthropic funds. Proponents argue that mandating free online availability maximizes the return on investment by enabling broader reuse, collaboration, and application of findings across disciplines and geographies.[22] [23] This rationale assumes that unrestricted access accelerates scientific progress, as evidenced by policies from funders like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which emphasize rapid sharing of ideas and data to reach the widest audience possible.[23] A core assumption is that open access enhances research impact through increased visibility and citations, with the expectation that removing financial hurdles will foster innovation without undermining the quality or peer-review processes of scholarly publishing. Empirical studies partially support this for specific outcomes, such as spurring technical inventions via in-text patent citations following mandates, though evidence for broader increases in scientific output remains limited.[1] [8] [9] Mandates also presuppose that authors and institutions can comply via self-archiving or fee-based gold routes without disproportionate burdens, relying on grant funds or offsets to cover article processing charges where applicable.[24] Underlying these policies is the causal belief that knowledge operates as a public good, where exclusivity in distribution—often justified by publishers' costs—yields suboptimal societal outcomes compared to widespread availability. This view, articulated in early advocacy like the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative, posits that free access aligns with the non-rivalrous nature of information, enabling cumulative progress akin to how prior scientific revolutions built on openly shared foundational works.[25] However, the assumption overlooks potential trade-offs, such as selective compliance favoring high-impact fields or unintended shifts in publishing incentives, as compliance data from institutional analyses indicate uneven adoption rates across research outputs.[22]Historical Origins
Precursors in the 1990s
In 1991, physicist Paul Ginsparg established arXiv, an automated electronic archive initially hosted at Los Alamos National Laboratory, enabling physicists to freely distribute preprints of their research papers via email and later the web.[26] This initiative addressed inefficiencies in traditional preprint distribution, such as mailing physical copies, and rapidly grew to serve thousands of users by providing immediate, unrestricted access to cutting-edge work in high-energy physics and related fields.[27] arXiv demonstrated the practical viability of centralized, open digital repositories for scholarly communication, influencing subsequent developments in self-archiving without disrupting peer-reviewed journal systems.[28] On June 27, 1994, cognitive scientist Stevan Harnad posted the "Subversive Proposal" to multiple academic mailing lists, advocating that scholars in all fields self-archive the peer-reviewed, final drafts of their journal articles on public servers to eliminate access barriers imposed by subscription-based publishing.[29] Harnad argued that authors, who typically relinquish copyrights to publishers without financial compensation, could retain distribution rights to make their work universally accessible while preserving the peer-review process through existing journals.[30] This call emphasized self-archiving as a complement to, rather than replacement for, traditional publishing, predicting it would increase research impact without harming journal viability—a position later supported by empirical observations of non-cannibalization in fields like physics.[31] These 1990s developments laid foundational precedents for open-access mandates by showcasing the technical feasibility, enhanced visibility, and citation advantages of free online dissemination, prompting broader discussions on policy interventions to universalize such practices amid rising journal subscription costs.[32] Early adopters in physics and computer science, through voluntary self-archiving via FTP sites and arXiv, provided data-driven evidence that open distribution accelerated scientific progress without undermining quality control.[4]Key Declarations and Early Advocacy (2000-2005)
The Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI), convened by the Open Society Institute, produced a foundational statement on February 14, 2002, following an invitation-only meeting in Budapest to explore strategies for accelerating open access to peer-reviewed research literature.[33] The declaration defined open access as the net removal of financial barriers to permit unrestricted online reading, downloading, copying, distributing, printing, searching, or linking of journal articles, with the proviso of providing proper attribution of authorship; it explicitly excluded economic barriers but allowed technological or legal restrictions only to the extent needed to safeguard authorship.[34] Initial signatories included representatives from diverse institutions such as Bioline International, the Open Society Archives, and various academic and library entities, with the statement garnering thousands of subsequent endorsements from individuals and organizations worldwide.[35] While not imposing mandates, the BOAI advocated two complementary paths—self-archiving accepted manuscripts in public repositories (green open access) and creating or converting journals to full open access models (gold open access)—urging governments, universities, laboratories, and libraries to implement policies facilitating these approaches, thereby laying groundwork for future mandatory requirements.[34] Building on the BOAI, the Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing emerged from a meeting on April 11, 2003, hosted by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, involving biomedical research stakeholders including funders, scientists, librarians, and publishers.[36] This statement specified open access for peer-reviewed research articles as the immediate, irrevocable, and free online availability of the author's final manuscript upon acceptance for publication, enabling unrestricted reading, downloading, copying, distribution, printing, searching, or linking, provided the author and source are attributed; it distinguished this from mere availability by emphasizing permissions for all legitimate scholarly uses, including computational analysis.[37] Signatories committed to supporting only those journals or publishers adopting these terms, effectively calling for selective funding and institutional policies to prioritize compliant outlets, which influenced subsequent funder mandates in biomedicine.[37] The Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities, issued on October 22, 2003, at a conference organized by the Max Planck Society, extended the principles of prior statements to encompass not only literature but also primary data and cultural heritage materials, urging signatories to promote open digital repositories and sustainable publishing models.[38] Initial endorsers included prominent institutions such as the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), the Max Planck Society, and various European academies and funders, with over 200 signatories by the conference's end and continued growth thereafter.[39] The declaration explicitly called upon research organizations worldwide to implement policies ensuring open access dissemination, including immediate online availability of authors' final versions with maximal reuse rights, thereby advocating for institutional and funder mandates as mechanisms to realize a global knowledge commons via the internet.[38] Parallel to these declarations, cognitive scientist Stevan Harnad emerged as a prominent advocate for mandatory self-archiving, arguing in publications and discussions from 2001 onward that universities and funders should require researchers to deposit manuscripts in institutional repositories immediately upon acceptance to maximize research impact without disrupting peer-reviewed publishing.[40] Harnad's emphasis on green open access mandates as a low-cost, high-compliance strategy influenced early policy debates, positing that voluntary self-archiving yielded insufficient uptake—citing deposit rates below 15% in available repositories—and thus necessitated institutional enforcement to "wake the slumbering giant" of untapped access potential.[41] These efforts, though predating widespread implementations, framed mandates as essential for causal efficacy in broadening dissemination, countering inertia in scholarly communication systems reliant on subscription barriers.[42]Initial Mandate Implementations (2006-2012)
In 2006, Research Councils UK (RCUK) formalized its open-access policy, requiring researchers funded by its member councils to deposit the final peer-reviewed versions of their journal articles in an institutional or subject-based repository "as soon as possible" after acceptance for publication, while allowing funders to cover article processing charges for immediate open access where self-archiving rights were restricted. This policy, initially outlined in 2005, took effect on October 1, 2006, for four councils—Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)—with the remaining councils adopting similar requirements by August 2006; it emphasized green open access through self-archiving but permitted embargoes and hybrid gold options if archiving was not feasible.[43][44] The United States' National Institutes of Health (NIH) enacted its Public Access Policy on December 26, 2007, signed into law by President George W. Bush as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, with implementation beginning April 7, 2008; it mandated that investigators submit peer-reviewed manuscripts accepted for publication in NIH-funded research to PubMed Central, ensuring public availability no later than 12 months after the publisher's date, to maximize the dissemination of taxpayer-supported findings while accommodating journal embargoes.[45][46] This policy built on a voluntary request introduced in 2005 but shifted to a requirement following congressional directives in 2004 and 2007, applying to an estimated 80,000 manuscripts annually from NIH's $29 billion research budget.[45] Institutionally, Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences unanimously adopted the first comprehensive university-wide open-access mandate in the United States on February 12, 2008, granting the university a nonexclusive, irrevocable license to distribute faculty scholarly articles in its open-access repository (DASH), with authors retaining copyright and able to opt out individual works; this policy applied prospectively to articles published after its adoption and encouraged immediate deposit of accepted manuscripts.[47][48] Similar institutional mandates emerged in Europe, including at the University of Southampton and University of Stirling in 2008, which required self-archiving of research outputs in institutional repositories, often with immediate or short-embargo access.[49] These early mandates predominantly favored green open access via repository deposits over gold routes, reflecting empirical concerns about the sustainability and quality control of paid immediate-access models, though compliance remained variable due to reliance on voluntary self-reporting and limited enforcement tools; for instance, initial RCUK uptake hovered below 50% without dedicated infrastructure support.[50] By 2012, such policies had proliferated to over 100 funders and institutions globally, as tracked by registries like ROARMAP, laying groundwork for broader adoption amid debates over embargo lengths and hybrid publishing costs.[51]Variations in Mandate Design
Funder versus Institutional Mandates
Funder mandates are policies imposed by research funding agencies requiring recipients to make publications arising from funded projects openly accessible, typically through self-archiving in designated repositories or payment for gold open access, often with allowable embargoes of 6 to 12 months.[2] These apply selectively to grant-supported work, leveraging financial incentives or sanctions—such as ineligibility for future funding—to enforce compliance.[24] In contrast, institutional mandates originate from universities or research organizations, obligating affiliated researchers to deposit outputs, regardless of funding source, into institutional or subject repositories, though they frequently lack binding enforcement mechanisms like funding cutoffs.[52] A primary distinction lies in scope and leverage: funder policies target specific projects, covering a subset of outputs but with high applicability to large-scale research, as seen in the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy enacted in 2008, which mandates deposit of peer-reviewed manuscripts in PubMed Central no later than 12 months post-publication, achieving compliance rates exceeding 90% by 2012 due to grant oversight.[22] Institutional policies encompass all faculty publications but often rely on softer encouragements, such as integration into promotion criteria; Harvard University's 2008 Faculty of Arts and Sciences policy, for instance, initially requested non-exclusive licenses for institutional archiving, yielding voluntary deposits but limited mandatory uptake until reinforced by departmental incentives.[1] Empirical comparisons reveal funder mandates generally outperform institutional ones in driving open access rates, with studies indicating that funder requirements correlate with 12-27% increases in patent citations for affected NIH-funded work, reflecting broader dissemination impacts.[8] Institutional mandates, however, exhibit "minor effects" on academic outputs, as evidenced by analyses showing stagnant deposit rates without sanctions, partly due to researcher resistance over copyright concerns and administrative burdens. Systematized reviews confirm this disparity, noting funder policies' stricter timelines (e.g., immediate or short-embargo access) and monitoring yield higher adherence than the advisory nature of many institutional rules.[53] Critics, including open access advocate Stevan Harnad, describe institutional mandates as a "mixed bag," with many proving ineffective or illusory absent penalties, contrasting funder mandates' tangible enforcement via funding streams.[52] Hybrid approaches, where institutions align with funder rules (e.g., via Plan S compliance in Europe), can amplify effects, but pure institutional efforts lag in verifiable compliance metrics, underscoring the causal role of financial stakes in mandate success.[22]Green versus Gold Open Access Requirements
Green open access (OA) mandates require funded researchers to deposit a copy of their peer-reviewed manuscript—typically the accepted author manuscript (AAM)—into an institutional, disciplinary, or central repository, such as PubMed Central, shortly after acceptance or publication, though embargoes of 6 to 12 months are often permitted to protect publisher interests. [54] [55] These mandates emphasize self-archiving as a compliance mechanism, allowing publication in subscription-based journals while fulfilling public access requirements, as seen in policies like the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy, which mandates deposit within three months of publication for NIH-funded work. [56] Compliance typically involves no direct fees to authors beyond subscription models, but success depends on publisher permissions for archiving versions and metadata accuracy in repositories. [57] Gold OA mandates, in contrast, demand that research outputs be published directly in fully open-access journals or platforms, where the final version of record (VoR) is made immediately and permanently available under an open license like CC BY, often requiring payment of article processing charges (APCs) averaging $2,000 to $5,000 per article to cover publication costs. [58] [59] Exemplified by cOAlition S's Plan S, launched in 2018 and effective from 2021, these policies prohibit publication in hybrid journals without transformative agreements and prioritize diamond (no-APC) or APC-funded gold routes for immediacy and version integrity. [60] [61] The core requirements diverge in immediacy, cost allocation, and output versioning: green mandates permit delayed access and non-VoR deposits to minimize financial barriers, potentially limiting rapid dissemination but preserving traditional publishing economics, whereas gold mandates enforce zero-embargo VoR access at upfront author-side costs, aiming to shift revenue models entirely to OA but risking inequities for unfunded researchers or those in low-resource settings. [62] [63] Hybrid approaches, as in updated Plan S guidance, allow green deposits of VoR under strict conditions (e.g., immediate archiving with CC BY), but pure gold mandates reject embargoes outright to prioritize public usability over publisher revenue protection. [60]| Requirement Aspect | Green OA Mandates | Gold OA Mandates |
|---|---|---|
| Access Timing | Deposit upon acceptance; embargo up to 12 months common | Immediate upon publication; no embargoes allowed |
| Manuscript Version | Accepted author manuscript (AAM); updates to VoR optional | Final version of record (VoR) required |
| Cost to Authors/Funders | Typically none; relies on subscriptions | APCs mandatory for most journals (e.g., $1,500–$10,000 range) |
| Licensing | Varies; often repository-specific, may restrict commercial reuse | Standard open licenses (e.g., CC BY) for broad reuse |
| Publication Venue Flexibility | Allows subscription or hybrid journals with archiving rights | Restricted to fully OA journals or platforms |
Deposit, Timing, and Compliance Mechanisms
Deposit in open-access mandates, particularly for green open access routes, requires authors to submit the final peer-reviewed accepted manuscript (AAM) or, in some cases, the version of record (VoR) to a compliant repository. These repositories encompass institutional archives, subject-specific platforms like arXiv for physics and mathematics, or centralized funder systems such as PubMed Central for biomedical outputs funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).[65] [66] Deposit formats prioritize the AAM to avoid publisher restrictions on the publisher-formatted VoR, ensuring accessibility without violating journal agreements.[1] Timing provisions vary to balance publisher interests with public access goals, often mandating deposit upon manuscript acceptance rather than post-publication to streamline processing. Public release may follow immediately or after an embargo period; for example, the NIH's pre-2025 policy allowed up to 12 months for availability in PubMed Central after acceptance, but the 2024 revision, effective July 1, 2025, demands immediate access upon publication with deposit at that time and no embargoes permitted.[67] [68] Similarly, U.S. federal policies under the 2022 Office of Science and Technology Policy memorandum phase in zero-embargo requirements by 2026 across agencies, while Plan S-compliant green routes cap embargoes at 6 months for subscription journal outputs, requiring deposit of the AAM or VoR shortly after acceptance.[56] [69] Such timelines aim to minimize delays but frequently encounter delays in practice due to author oversight or repository workflows.[70] Compliance mechanisms rely on integrated reporting, verification tools, and conditional incentives tied to funding or institutional criteria. Funders like the NIH enforce through grant progress reports and administrative audits, with non-compliance potentially leading to enforcement actions such as fund withholding or ineligibility for future awards under revised policies.[67] Institutional mandates often incorporate self-archiving confirmations into promotion dossiers, while systems like OpenAIRE for European Horizon programs automate monitoring via metadata harvesting from repositories.[71] cOAlition S employs journal compliance checkers and rights retention strategies to verify adherence, with sanctions escalating from reminders to funding restrictions for repeated violations.[72] Despite these structures, actual enforcement remains inconsistent, as many policies emphasize facilitation—such as publisher deposit services—over punitive measures, resulting in variable uptake rates.[73][74]Global Implementation Examples
United States Policies
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented the first major U.S. federal open-access mandate with its Public Access Policy on April 7, 2008, requiring investigators to submit peer-reviewed manuscripts from NIH-funded research to PubMed Central (PMC) for public access no later than 12 months after publication. This policy applied to articles accepted for publication on or after that date, emphasizing deposit of the author's final peer-reviewed manuscript while allowing publishers to provide the version of record if licensed accordingly.[75] Compliance was enforced through progress reports and just-in-time submissions, with non-compliance potentially affecting future funding eligibility. The National Science Foundation (NSF) followed with its 2015 Data Management Plan requirement, mandating that proposals include plans for data sharing, which implicitly supported open access to underlying publications, though without a strict embargo timeline initially. NSF's policy evolved to require public access to peer-reviewed articles within 12 months, aligning with broader federal efforts, and emphasized integration with agency repositories or designated platforms. A pivotal advancement occurred on August 25, 2022, when the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), under Director Alondra Nelson, issued a memorandum directing all federal agencies with research and development expenditures exceeding $100 million to update their public access policies. The Nelson Memo eliminated the 12-month embargo, requiring immediate public access to peer-reviewed publications and supporting data from federally funded research upon acceptance for publication or earlier, effective no later than December 31, 2025. Agencies were instructed to develop plans by December 31, 2024, prioritizing machine-readable formats, metadata standards, and equitable access while preserving intellectual property rights for creators.[76] In response, the NIH revised its policy effective July 1, 2025, mandating immediate deposit of manuscripts into PMC without embargo, with publishers encouraged but not required to provide version-of-record access simultaneously. Other agencies, such as the Department of Energy (DOE), require deposits into DOE PAGES with zero embargo under updated guidelines, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) directs submissions to PMC or CDC Stacks. These policies generally favor "green" open access via repository deposits over mandatory "gold" open access fees, though agencies like NSF allow hybrid compliance through licensed agreements. Implementation varies by agency budget and scope, with over 20 federal entities required to comply, focusing on taxpayer-funded research to maximize dissemination without direct mandates on subscription cancellations or publisher negotiations.[77] Compliance mechanisms include automated workflows, funder oversight via grant terms, and potential sanctions like funding restrictions, though empirical data on enforcement remains emerging as full rollout approaches in 2025-2026.[78] Policies explicitly retain authors' rights to assert copyrights, countering concerns over excessive federal licensing that could deter commercial reuse.[79]European and International Funder Mandates
cOAlition S, established in September 2018, is an international consortium of research funding organizations dedicated to accelerating the transition to full and immediate open access through Plan S.[80] Plan S stipulates that, starting January 1, 2021, all peer-reviewed scholarly publications arising from research funded by its members must be openly accessible at the time of publication, without embargoes, typically via compliant open access journals, platforms, or repositories under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license or equivalent.[81] Members include the European Commission, numerous national European research councils (such as those in the Netherlands, Sweden, and France), and international entities like the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, encompassing over 20 countries and funding billions in annual research grants.[82] The European Union's Horizon Europe programme (2021–2027), with a budget exceeding €95 billion, mandates immediate open access for all peer-reviewed scientific publications supported in whole or in part by its grants, aligning directly with Plan S principles while allowing self-archiving in repositories as a compliance route.[83] This builds on Horizon 2020 (2014–2020), which required open access within six months for scientific disciplines and twelve months for humanities and social sciences but permitted hybrid journals under specific agreements.[84] The European Research Council (ERC), funded through Horizon Europe, requires grantees to deposit peer-reviewed publications in open access repositories immediately upon acceptance, with funding available for article processing charges (APCs) in compliant venues, though it retains flexibility for embargoes up to six or twelve months in cases not fully aligned with immediate access.[85] Among international funders, the Wellcome Trust, a cOAlition S co-founder, has maintained an open access policy since October 2005, mandating that all original research papers funded by its grants be deposited in Europe PMC immediately upon publication under a CC BY license.[86] From January 2021, it restricted APC funding to fully open access and transformative journals, and effective January 1, 2025, it ceased support for hybrid journals entirely, prioritizing diamond open access models where feasible.[86] Similarly, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation requires all funded research outputs to comply with Plan S, emphasizing immediate open access to maximize global dissemination.[80]Institutional and University Adoptions
Harvard University became one of the first institutions to adopt an open-access mandate when its Faculty of Arts and Sciences unanimously voted in February 2008 to grant the university a nonexclusive, irrevocable license to distribute faculty scholarly articles in its open-access repository, effective for articles accepted after implementation.[48] This policy, modeled as an opt-out rights-retention mechanism, required deposit of final peer-reviewed manuscripts unless waived.[47] The Massachusetts Institute of Technology followed in March 2009, with faculty approving a policy by unanimous vote that applies to all scholarly articles produced by faculty, regardless of publication date, granting MIT a license to distribute accepted manuscripts in its repository, DSpace@MIT.[87] The policy emphasizes green open access, allowing immediate deposit with optional embargoes negotiated by authors.[88] Subsequent adoptions proliferated in the United States, including the University of California system's Academic Senate endorsement of a rights-retention policy in July 2013, building on campus-level implementations such as the University of California, San Francisco's unanimous faculty vote in May 2012.[89] Stanford University faculty senate passed a similar policy in November 2020, requiring deposit of peer-reviewed manuscripts within 12 months of publication.[90] Other U.S. examples include Georgia Institute of Technology (November 2012) and Florida State University (February 2016), both featuring opt-out licenses for repository deposit.[91] In Europe, institutions like ETH Zurich adopted an open-access policy in 2008, mandating deposit of peer-reviewed articles in its repository, while University College London implemented a policy in 2013 requiring researchers to deposit accepted manuscripts.[52] Globally, the Registry of Open Access Repository Mandates and Policies (ROARMAP) tracks over 100 university-level mandates as of 2023, predominantly green open-access requirements focused on self-archiving in institutional repositories.[51] These policies often face variable compliance rates, with empirical studies indicating deposit rates below 50% in early adopters without strong enforcement.[92]| Institution | Country | Adoption Date | Key Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harvard University (FAS) | USA | February 2008 | Opt-out rights retention; deposit in DASH repository[48] |
| ETH Zurich | Switzerland | 2008 | Mandatory deposit of peer-reviewed articles[52] |
| MIT | USA | March 18, 2009 | Unanimous faculty vote; applies retroactively to scholarly articles[87] |
| UC System (systemwide) | USA | July 2013 | Rights retention; follows campus pilots like UCSF (2012)[89] |
| Stanford University | USA | November 2020 | Deposit within 12 months; peer-reviewed manuscripts[90] |