Open Access Publishing

The movement to make scientific research freely available to anyone with an internet connection has reshaped academic publishing over the past two decades. What began as a philosophical argument — that publicly funded research should be publicly accessible — has become an increasingly concrete set of policies, funding mandates, and business models that affect where and how researchers publish their work. Understanding the open access landscape is no longer optional for researchers in the life sciences: funder requirements, institutional agreements, and community norms increasingly expect familiarity with the range of open access options and the practical implications of each. This chapter explains the major models of open access, traces the policy landscape, and offers practical guidance for navigating your own publication decisions.

The Open Access Spectrum

Open access is not a single, uniform model but a spectrum of approaches that differ in who pays, when access is provided, and what rights readers and downstream users have over the content Suber 2012. The four most commonly discussed categories are green, gold, diamond, and bronze open access, each with distinct implications for authors, publishers, and readers.

Green open access refers to the practice of depositing a version of a published article in an open repository, such as an institutional repository or a subject-specific archive, where it can be read freely. The deposited version is typically either the accepted manuscript (the peer-reviewed version before publisher formatting, also called the Author Accepted Manuscript or AAM) or, less commonly, the published version of record, depending on the publisher’s policies. Green OA does not require paying a fee; it is an act of self-archiving that complements rather than replaces traditional journal publication. The main limitation is that journal publishers often impose embargo periods — typically six to twelve months, though sometimes longer — during which the accepted manuscript may not be publicly deposited. PubMed Central, Europe PMC, and thousands of institutional repositories worldwide host green OA content.

Gold open access refers to publication in a journal that makes articles freely available immediately upon publication, funded through Article Processing Charges (APCs) paid by the author, their institution, or their funder. The APC model has enabled the growth of journals that provide immediate, unrestricted access to all published content, and some of the most rigorous journals in the life sciences — PLOS Biology, eLife, and the suite of journals from BioMed Central — operate on this model. Gold OA also describes hybrid journals, which are subscription journals that offer authors the option to pay an APC to make their individual article open access while the remainder of the journal remains behind a paywall. The hybrid model has been controversial because it allows publishers to collect both subscription revenue and APC revenue simultaneously, a practice critics call “double dipping” Piwowar et al. 2018.

Diamond open access, sometimes called platinum OA, describes journals that charge no fees to authors and provide free access to readers, funded instead through institutional subsidy, society support, government grants, or volunteer labor. Many diamond OA journals are run by professional societies, universities, or research institutes and operate at modest scale. While diamond OA journals may lack the brand recognition of major commercial publishers, they represent an important part of the open access ecosystem, particularly for disciplines and regions where APCs create prohibitive barriers.

Bronze open access is a less formal category that describes content made temporarily or conditionally free on publisher websites — for example, during a promotional campaign or in response to a public health emergency — without a permanent open license. Bronze OA is generally not considered equivalent to genuine open access because the publisher can withdraw access at any time.

Green OA: Self-Archiving and Repositories

Self-archiving in a repository is the most universally available open access option, because it does not require paying an APC and is permitted, at least in principle, by the vast majority of publishers. The key questions are which version you may deposit, when you may deposit it, and where. Publisher policies on self-archiving vary and can be looked up through the SHERPA/RoMEO database (sherpa.ac.uk/romeo), which maintains a comprehensive, searchable record of journals’ self-archiving permissions organized by publisher and journal title.

PubMed Central (PMC), operated by the National Library of Medicine, is the most important open access repository for biomedical research in the United States. NIH-funded researchers are required to deposit their accepted manuscripts in PMC no later than one year after publication, and the NIH Public Access Policy enforcement mechanisms have been significantly strengthened in recent years NIH 2023. Europe PMC serves a similar function for research funded by Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Council, and other European funders. Institutional repositories, typically operated by university libraries, provide another deposit option and often include staff who can help researchers navigate publisher policies and manage deposits.

One important practical consideration is timing. Depositing a preprint before submission to a journal (see discussion of preprints below) creates a version of record that is immediately publicly accessible, while depositing a peer-reviewed accepted manuscript after journal acceptance ensures that the version with the benefit of peer review is eventually freely available. These two strategies are complementary, not mutually exclusive, and together they maximize the public accessibility of your work across the full timeline of the publication process.

Gold OA: Article Processing Charges and Institutional Agreements

For researchers whose work is funded by grants with explicit open access requirements, or who want immediate open access rather than delayed deposit, gold OA — paying an APC to publish in an open access or hybrid journal — is often the path of least resistance Piwowar et al. 2018. APCs vary enormously: at fully open access journals, they range from a few hundred dollars (or nothing, at diamond OA journals) to several thousand; at hybrid journals operated by major commercial publishers, APCs can exceed five thousand dollars for immediate open access in a high-impact journal.

Many institutions have negotiated transformative agreements (also called read-and-publish agreements) with major publishers that allow researchers affiliated with those institutions to publish open access in participating journals without paying APCs out of their grant budgets. These agreements are typically structured so that the institution’s library pays a single fee covering both subscription access to the journal’s content and open access publication rights for affiliated authors. The coverage varies by agreement: some cover all articles by corresponding authors at the institution; others cover only articles in specific journal titles or portfolios. Your institution’s library is the best source of information about which agreements are in place and how to claim your open access publication rights.

When APCs must be paid from grant funds, confirm that your funding source explicitly permits this use. Most major funders — including the NIH, Wellcome Trust, and the Research Councils UK — allow APCs to be charged to grant budgets, but the rules differ by funder and by grant type. Some funders require that APCs be covered by dedicated open access funds rather than research activity budgets. Planning for APCs during the grant proposal stage, rather than scrambling to find funds at the time of publication, is a practice that prevents last-minute complications.

Funder Mandates: NIH, Plan S, and Wellcome Trust

The policy landscape around open access has shifted dramatically in recent years, driven by large funders who have concluded that free and immediate access to research findings is essential to maximizing the return on their investments McKiernan et al. 2016. Understanding the specific requirements of your funders is not merely a matter of compliance; it shapes which journals are available to you and what types of licenses you are required to use.

The NIH Public Access Policy, which has been in effect since 2008, requires that all peer-reviewed articles arising from NIH funding be deposited in PubMed Central and made publicly accessible no later than twelve months after publication. Beginning in 2026, updated NIH guidelines require immediate open access — zero embargo — for most NIH-funded publications, aligning with the memo issued by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in 2022 directing all federal agencies to transition to immediate public access for all federally funded research NIH 2023. These requirements apply to the final peer-reviewed manuscript; they do not require authors to pay APCs, though APC-based publishing is one way to comply.

Plan S, a coalition initiative led by cOAlition S and supported by the European Commission, Wellcome Trust, and a growing number of national funders, requires that all research funded by participating funders be published in fully open access venues or deposited in open repositories with no embargo period. Plan S also requires that published articles carry a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, ensuring not only free access but the right to reuse, translate, and build upon published work with attribution. The Wellcome Trust, one of the world’s largest private funders of biomedical research, has its own open access policy aligned with Plan S principles and imposes financial penalties on grant holders who fail to comply.

Creative Commons Licenses: What They Mean for Your Work

Open access publishing is most valuable when it is accompanied by a clear statement of what readers and downstream users are permitted to do with the content. Creative Commons licenses, which are applied to the vast majority of open access articles, provide a standardized framework for communicating these permissions Suber 2012.

The most permissive and widely used Creative Commons license is CC BY (Attribution), which allows anyone to copy, distribute, adapt, and even commercially exploit the work, provided they give appropriate credit to the original authors. This is the license required by most Plan S funders and Wellcome Trust, because it creates the fewest barriers to reuse, including translation, inclusion in textbooks, meta-analysis, and text and data mining. CC BY-NC (Attribution-NonCommercial) adds a restriction prohibiting commercial use, which some researchers prefer because it prevents commercial entities from profiting from their work without permission. CC BY-ND (Attribution-NoDerivatives) prohibits the creation of derivative works, which effectively precludes translation, adaptation, or revision — a significant limitation for work that might be incorporated into educational materials or systematic reviews. CC BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike) requires that derivative works be distributed under the same license, similar to the “copyleft” principle in software licensing.

Choosing a license involves balancing your desire to maximize the reuse and impact of your work against any specific concerns about commercial exploitation or derivative use. For most life sciences research, CC BY represents the best balance: it maximizes reach, is compatible with text and data mining, and is required by many of the largest funders. However, your choice may be constrained by your funder’s requirements or by the journal’s policies, which may offer only certain license options.

Preprints as Immediate Open Access

Preprints — manuscripts deposited in open repositories before or during peer review — have emerged as one of the most practical and impactful ways to achieve immediate open access without paying an APC. When you deposit a preprint on bioRxiv, medRxiv, or another preprint server, the manuscript is assigned a DOI and becomes freely and permanently accessible to anyone worldwide, typically within a day or two of submission. The preprint version is the one you control completely; it is not subject to publisher formatting restrictions, copyright transfer, or embargo periods Piwowar et al. 2018.

The preprint ecosystem has matured significantly since the COVID-19 pandemic, during which preprints became a critical channel for rapid dissemination of research findings. Science journalists, policymakers, and other researchers came to routinely access and cite preprints, accelerating the normalization of preprints as legitimate scientific outputs. Many funding agencies now accept citations to preprints in grant applications, and many journals — including high-profile venues like Nature and Cell — have policies explicitly permitting preprint deposition.

It is important to communicate clearly when citing or discussing preprints that they have not been peer reviewed. Preprints vary enormously in quality, and without the editorial filter that peer review provides, readers bear greater responsibility for critically evaluating methods and conclusions. For your own work, posting a preprint does not eliminate the need to pursue formal publication; it makes your work available more quickly while that process proceeds.

Finding Your Institution’s OA Resources

Navigating the open access landscape is easier when you know where to look for local support. Most research universities have librarians who specialize in scholarly communication and open access, and many institutions have dedicated open access offices or programs that can advise on funder compliance, APC funding, and institutional repository deposit. Your institution’s library website likely includes information about any transformative agreements with publishers, APC funds or waivers available to affiliated researchers, and the institutional repository’s deposit procedures.

Conversations with your advisor, department administrator, or grants manager can also clarify the open access requirements attached to your specific funding sources. When preparing a grant proposal, reading the funder’s data sharing and publication policies in advance allows you to budget for any anticipated APCs and to choose a dissemination strategy that ensures compliance from the outset. Open access is no longer an optional add-on to the publication process; for many researchers, it is a condition of funding and an expectation of the scientific community. Building familiarity with the available options positions you to meet these expectations efficiently and to maximize the reach of your work.