Open access policies at MIT | Scholarly Publishing – MIT Libraries

“In March 2009, MIT faculty passed one of the country’s first open access policies; the policy covers their scholarly articles by default.

As of April 2017, all MIT authors, including students, postdocs, and staff, can “opt-in” to an open access license. See below for information on how to deposit a paper, get download statistics on your papers, or opt out of the policy. Authors covered by the MIT faculty open access policy do not need to sign this license.

MIT faculty OA policy
Text of the 2009 faculty open access policy, as well as definitions of terms that appear in the policy.
MIT authors’ opt-in OA license
Information and FAQs on MIT’s opt-in open access license. Sign the license.
FAQ on MIT’s faculty OA policy
Opt-out of MIT’s OA policies
Automated form to waive the faculty OA policy or authors’ opt-in license for a specific paper. Email for more information.
Reader comments on OA articles
This beta site shows what readers around the globe are saying about MIT’s OA policy.
Open access publishing support
Find support for open access publishing, including the OA fund. …”

UiT’s Open Access policy

“At UiT The Arctic University of Norway, all academic publications shall be accessible in open access journals or open repositories.

The following applies to scientific work with a publication date of 1. January 2022 or later: Regardless of the publication channel, full-text copies of scientific articles written by employees and students at UiT shall be uploaded (deposited) in the national register (currently called Cristin).

If the article is published with open access with the publisher (gold open access), the publisher’s PDF (Published version, Version of Record) must be uploaded.
If the article is published in a closed channel (subscription journal) that does not allow self-archiving of the publisher’s PDF, the latest peer-reviewed manuscript version (accepted manuscript, Author’s Accepted Manuscript, postprint) must be uploaded.

All uploaded full-text copies will be made openly available in the institutional archive (currently called Munin). Authors who wish to make a reservation against making a full-text copy available in Munin can apply for an exemption. More information about this can be found under Self-archiving.

By not applying for an exemption, UiT’s employees and students give the institution permission to make full text copies available in the open institutional archive (currently called Munin) under a Creative Commons license, in line with prevailing international practice in gree Open Access infrastructure. Read more about the rules and procedures in Principles for open access to scientific publications at UiT Norway’s Arctic University….”

Open access: Brazilian scientists denied waivers and discounts

“A study comparing open-access versus paywalled publications finds less geographical diversity among authors who choose open access (see Nature; 2022). This does not surprise us in Brazil, where article-processing charges (APCs) typically correspond to many months, or even years, of a scientist’s stipend. Yet we are not eligible for waivers or discounts under the open-access initiative Plan S (see, or for research-accessibility programmes such as Research4Life.

Both schemes support publications from low-income and lower-to-middle-income economies. Because Brazil is classed as an upper-middle-income economy, requests for APC waivers and discounts are generally turned down, in our experience. Many of us opt instead to publish behind paywalls. But that might not be possible after 2024, when Plan S transformative agreements will end and journals will transition to exclusively publishing open-access content….”

Left in the Cold: The Failure of APC Waiver Programs to Provide Author Equity – Science Editor

“This article is about author equity and waivers, not about workplace diversity and equity, which is the focus C4DISC’s efforts to date. But we believe concern over waiver programs and author equity aligns squarely with the stated values of C4DISC and with many of the stated diversity, equity, and inclusion values of its member organizations. We also believe it is insufficient for scholarly communication organizations to only pursue equity and diversity in certain aspects of their operations while ignoring it in others. Therefore, this is an article about inequity in scholarly communication. It is about the continued restriction of space for marginalized communities in scholarly communication. And it is about the growth of barriers and the exclusion of diverse perspectives in scholarly communication.

The authors will offer 3 perspectives on the issue of waiver programs and author equity: 1) Romy Beard, until recently, was the Licensing Programme Manager at Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL), where she worked with libraries and consortia from developing and transitioning economy countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa; 2) Sara Rouhi is the Director of Strategic Partnerships at PLOS, where she focuses on building non-APC, inclusive business models to make publishing more equitable; and 3) Curtis Brundy oversees collections and scholarly communications at the Iowa State University Library, which has committed to transitioning its subscription spending to support equitable OA. We will include recommendations for improving waiver programs as well as for adopting open models that have equity built in, making waivers unnecessary….”

Open-access publishing fees deter researchers in the global south

“Authors in low-income countries rarely published free-to-read papers, even when they qualified for publication-fee waivers….

Although many in the scientific community recognize this, it’s been a challenge to demonstrate it empirically, says Bruna. One problem is the difficulty of directly comparing open-access and non-open-access journals, because even those from the same publisher might differ in factors such as reputation and standards of acceptance….

The team also found that authors based in countries eligible for the waiver programme almost never published open-access articles. Bruna was surprised by how ineffective waivers seemed to be. And when waivers are used, even large discounts don’t reduce the cost enough for authors from lower-income regions, who often pay APCs out of their own pockets….”

Connecting Sustainable Development, Publishing Ethics, and the North-South Divide – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Recently, I was preparing a talk for a NISO Plus 2022’s (February 15-17, 2022) panel on ‘Working towards a more ethical information community’. I started asking myself, if sustainable development works towards a just and ethical society, how does it deal with the Global North-South divide in the ethics of scholarly publishing?… 

Under global programs, like Research4Life, institutions of my Least Developed Country (LDC), Bangladesh, are now accessing thousands of journals for free and researchers are enjoying the APC waivers offered by many journals. But, all this will change in 2026, when Bangladesh will graduate from the LDC list. Do we realize that a change in a country’s economic status does not necessarily correspond with a change in that country’s research system and investments in it? Have we thought of any ethical coping mechanism for the researchers and authors of countries in similar economic transitions?

We need to ask ourselves, as we work toward the SDGs, can we really have an ethical scholarly community without addressing such a dynamic North-South divide? More specifically, are we contextualizing enough the ethical considerations of the North for the South as we address this divide? …”


A successful first year of open access – Harding – 2021 – International Wound Journal – Wiley Online Library

“In 2001, the International Wound Journal has successfully completed the transition to become an open access journal. The great advantage of the transition is that everyone was able to read the journal irrespective of specialty, host institution or location.

Our decision to transition was not taken lightly, and several environmental factors drove this change. As discussed in our editorial at the end of last year1, open access publishing creates more a permissive use and sharing of authors articles, which in turn helps to increase the dissemination of their research. Since the International Wound Journal has a global authorship base, many of whom are in regions where open access publication is accelerating; the change was necessary for continued growth. As many institutions and global funders create open access policies and mandates for their authors our responsibility as editors is to ensure, we meet the needs of our authors. The reality is that many journals have already moved to this model, given the requirement of so many agencies for immediate open access. As such, we wanted to lead the way in the wound care space and embrace the evolving trend early.

So how have we done? How successful has the transition been? …”

PLOS Announces New Publishing Agreements with CRL and NERL – The Official PLOS Blog

“In concert with Open Access Week, the Public Library of Science (PLOS) is pleased to announce an agreement with NorthEast Research Libraries (NERL) and the Center for Research Libraries (CRL) to participate in PLOS’ three innovative publishing models. This three-year agreement provides researchers from NERL and CRL affiliated institutions with unlimited publishing privileges in PLOS journals without incurring fees. NERL and CRL combined have more than 200 Members….

All PLOS journals are underpinned by existing – and new – institutional business models that move beyond the APC to ensure more equitable and regionally appropriate ways to support Open Access publishing. PLOS’ institutional models are Community Action Publishing (CAP)[1], Flat Fees [2], and the Global Equity model[3]. PLOS will waive the annual fee if a member institution is in a Research4Life country….”

Open Access and Article Processing Charges in Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery Journals: a CrossSectional Analysis

Abstract Introduction: Open access (OA) publishing often requires article processing charges (APCs). While OA provides opportunities for broader readership, authors able to afford APCs are more commonly associated with well-funded, high-income country institutions, skewing knowledge dissemination. Here, we evaluate publishing models, OA practices, and APCs in cardiology and cardiac surgery. Methods: The InCites Journal Citation Reports 2019 directory by Clarivate Analytics was searched for “Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems” journals. Sister journals of included journals were identified. All journals were categorized as predominantly cardiology or cardiac surgery. Publishing models, APCs, and APC waivers were defined for all journals. Results: One hundred sixty-one journals were identified (139 cardiology, 22 cardiac surgery). APCs ranged from $244 to $5,000 ($244-5,000 cardiology; $383-3,300 cardiac surgery), with mean $2,911±891 and median $3,000 (interquartile range [IQR]: $2,500-3,425) across 139 journals with non-zero available APCs ($2,970±890, median $3,000, IQR: $2,573-3,450, cardiology; $2,491±799, median $2,740, IQR: $2,300-3,000, cardiac surgery). Average APCs were $3,307±566 and median $3,250 (IQR: $3,000- 3,500) for hybrid journals ($3,344±583, median $3,260, IQR: $3,000-3,690, cardiology; $2,983±221, median $2,975, IQR: $2,780- 3,149, cardiac surgery) and $1,997±832 and median $2,100 (IQR: $1,404-2,538) for fully OA journals ($2,039±843, median $2,100, IQR: $1,419-2,604, cardiology; $1,788±805, median $2,000, IQR: $1,475-2,345, cardiac surgery). Waivers were available for 51 (86.4%) fully OA and 37 (37.4%) hybrid journals. Seventeen journals were fully OA without APCs, one journal did not yet release APCs, and four journals were subscription-only. Conclusion: OA publishing is common in cardiology and cardiac surgery with substantial APCs. Waivers remain limited, posing barriers for unfunded and lesser-funded researchers.”

(IUCr) An open-access future for Journal of Synchrotron Radiation – Editorial from the Main Editors and IUCr Journals Editor-in-Chief

“The entire Journal of Synchrotron Radiation (JSR) editorial team would like to take this opportunity to inform all our readers, authors and supporters about the coming transition to open access. All papers submitted to JSR after 1 October 2021 will be for open-access publication. By taking this step, JSR is supporting a journey towards open science in general….

At this time, we wish to express our enormous appreciation of JSR’s supporting (facility) institutions. We also hope that more supporting institutions will join with JSR as we move forward from here. JSR supporting institutions are entitled to a certain number of open-access article processing charge (APC) vouchers per year for papers reporting work carried out at their facilities. Alternatively, if the contact author’s home institution is included in a transformative or read-and-publish arrangement with the IUCr’s publication partner, Wiley, those authors will be able to publish open-access research or review articles in JSR with no direct (APC) charge. Currently, such arrangements exist in Austria, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. Contact authors with connections to IUCr (Associates, members of national affiliates, World Directory of Crystallography, etc.) will receive modest APC discounts. Meanwhile, discounts (50%) for authors from lower middle income countries and waivers (100%) from low income countries will be issued. However, please note that a major difference from present arrangements is that all submitting authors will need to apply for such discounts and waivers at the time of submission and payments will be handled via Wiley authors services (for more details see….”


The North is Drawing the South Closer, But, This is Not the Whole Picture of Geographical Inclusion – The Scholarly Kitchen

“The above examples show how the Global North (which is currently leading the scholarly publishing industry) is creating an enabling environment so that the South (which presently is lagging behind in academic publishing) could be a more effective part of the global scholarly system. In almost all cases, the inclusion is achieved by attracting individuals from the South, as authors or editorial board members of the Northern journals, as members of societies’ committees, or as presenters or panelists at global conferences or webinars. But this is not the whole picture of geographical inclusion. I see three other dimensions within it.

First, to achieve the geographical inclusion outlined above, publishers and societies are investing in their DEI strategies, undertaking DEI promotion projects, allocating funds and human resources (e.g., Elsevier supporting Research4Life), and sacrificing profits (e.g., by waiving APCs), for example. But how do such investments reach beyond the participating individuals from the South? Are these individuals translating their acquired skills, experiences, and exposures in their home countries? Are they making any impact there? How do we determine if such impacts are being made?…”

The Journal of Diabetes is adopting Open Access

“”The Editors and Associate Editors of the Journal have looked with great interest at the growth of the Open Access model of medical publishing. Fundamentally, we consider highly desirable the goal of making the research and commentary of the Journal fully available to all those involved in the understanding and treatment of diabetes. In a sense, Open Access began in the Medical Sciences in mid- 1997, when Medline (the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online) was made available via PubMed, a bibliographic database of life sciences and biomedical information ( 1 ) used by most of those in the field. For those of us whose professional childhood began with trips to the Medical Library to pore over monthly and yearly printed (and weighty) tomes of Index Medicus, PubMed was nothing short of revolutionary, and we recall the excitement with which we greeted its initial appearance. With Open Access, particularly as more journal move to this model, authors can count on reaching an audience far larger than that of a subscription-based journal, essentially all of those with internet access, allowing greater visibility and impact of their work. With a click on the Table of Contents, and soon with a click on PubMed Central ( ), readers will have access to the full details of all articles we publish, rather than just having access to abstracts and one table or figure. This should translate into greater support of a more sustainable model for the work of education carried out by Libraries and Universities ( 2 ). As with many other journals in the field ( 3 ), we are now committed to a move to Open Access to begin in the first issue of 2022. The dilemma, and one about which we have had a great deal of internal debate, is that the cost of carrying out the activities of the Journal, with peer-review processes and maintenance of high publishing standards, will no longer be funded by subscriptions. We have wrestled with the unavoidable manuscript charges which will be required under Open Access. Arguments have been made on both sides as to whether this is or is not a desirable development ( 4 ).We fully expect that charges will be usually be borne by employers or funders, and in certain cases partially or fully waived (and we encourage authors to apply for this when their financial capacity is limited). But, the benefits will include greater visibility as more readers will be able to access published articles, and we will continue to endeavor to process manuscripts rapidly to help with their more widespread dissemination….”

Guest Post – APC Waiver Policies; A Job Half-done? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“Most, if not all, open access publishers offer to waive publication charges (of whatever flavor) for researchers in lower and middle-income countries (LMICs) without access to funds to pay them. After all, no-one wants to see open access actually increasing barriers and reducing diversity and inclusion in direct opposition to one of its fundamental objectives. However, as an echo of the “build it and they will come” mentality, waiver policies may end up failing to achieve their intended outcome if they are poorly constructed and communicated to their intended beneficiaries. A recent study by INASP revealed that fully 60% of respondents to an AuthorAID survey had paid Article Processing Charges (APCs) from their own pockets, despite the widespread availability of waivers. This could be due to internal organizational bureaucracy but more likely to the lack of awareness and understanding of APC waivers and how to claim them.

A White Paper published jointly by STM and Elsevier’s International Center for the Study of Research in September 2020 on how to achieve an equitable transition to open access included a specific recommendation to make publisher policies on APC waivers more consistent and more transparent. The authors commented, “Even though this business model may turn out to be an interim step on the road to universal open access, it is likely to persist for several years to come and may unwittingly end up preventing much important research from reaching its intended audience.”…”