Introduction
The best open access policies are the ones that deliver immediate access without shifting the cost onto authors, and only a few manage both. This article compares the main approaches, from Plan S and the US zero-embargo rules to Latin America’s Diamond model and India’s national subscription, and checks how each is working in practice.
Key points
- cOAlition S stopped funding transformative agreements and transformative journals as a principle after 31 December 2024.
- In the US, NIH’s zero-embargo policy took effect on 1 July 2025 and NSF’s applies to awards from 22 January 2026, but the 2022 Nelson memo behind these rules is being reviewed for repeal, so check each funder’s current policy.
- Dutch universities and medical centers reached 95% open access for their 2024 articles.
- India’s One Nation One Subscription, launched on 1 January 2025, gives more than 6,300 institutions access to nearly 13,000 journals; it widens reading access but is not an OA mandate.
- Latin America’s Diamond infrastructure (SciELO, Redalyc, Latindex) remains the clearest model of OA without author fees.
Open access (OA) was once the rebellious outsider of academic publishing—the scrappy alternative to expensive journal subscriptions that locked publicly funded research behind paywalls. Today, OA is no longer a fringe movement. It’s the new standard—but not without growing pains, contradictions, and a fair share of chaos. From policy frameworks to publishing models, the race to open research has become as much about power and money as it is about access and equity.
This article goes beyond surface-level cheerleading to examine the open access policies that are genuinely transforming scholarly publishing today. We’re not interested in wishful thinking or declarations that sound good in grant applications. We’re talking about real-world policies—enforced, scalable, and ideally, replicable.
The global OA policy ecosystem today is a fascinating mix of top-down mandates, grassroots initiatives, experimental platforms, and infrastructure investments. From the rule-heavy cOAlition S in Europe to Latin America’s community-driven diamond model, from China’s quiet infrastructural dominance to the U.S.’s bold zero-embargo rule, different regions are trying to solve the same problem with wildly different tools.
| Approach | How it works | Embargo | Who pays |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plan S (cOAlition S) | Funder mandate: publish in compliant OA venues or deposit in a repository | None; CC BY license | Often APCs, paid by funders or institutions |
| US federal agencies | Deposit the accepted manuscript in an approved repository | None (NIH from 1 July 2025; NSF for awards from 22 January 2026) | No fee required; authors publish where they choose |
| Latin America (Diamond) | Publicly funded platforms such as SciELO, Redalyc, and Latindex | None; free to read | No author fees; states and universities pay |
| China | Repository deposit (CAS and NSFC policies, 2014) plus state-built platforms | Up to 12 months | Mainly public funding |
| India | One Nation One Subscription: national journal subscription | Not an OA policy; widens reading access in India only | Government: ₹6,000 crore for 2025–2027 |
And the stakes? Nothing less than the future of knowledge distribution, scientific credibility, and academic equity worldwide.
The Criteria: What Makes a “Best” Open Access Policy?
Let’s agree on the yardstick. The best open access policies aren’t necessarily the ones that sound the most progressive. They’re the ones that deliver on the promise of open access, without bankrupting institutions, excluding marginalized researchers, or propping up legacy monopolies. For how institutions can write such policies, see How to Develop Open Science Policies, and for the difference between the two ideas, Open Science vs. Open Access: What Are the Differences?.
In evaluating global OA policies, we focus on five key criteria:
- Immediate, unrestricted access to research outputs — no embargoes, no publisher lock-ins.
- Affordability for researchers and institutions — policies that curb or eliminate predatory APC models.
- Support for a diverse publishing ecosystem — including regional and non-profit journals, not just the high-impact elites.
- Enforceability and real compliance — because policies that aren’t enforced are just white noise.
- Equity and inclusivity — across languages, disciplines, income levels, and geographic regions.
Ultimately, we’re interested in policies that not only open access but also redistribute power, shifting it away from oligopolistic control and toward academic communities, institutions, and the public that funds them. Specific rules change often, so the sections below date each development, while these criteria stay the same.
Plan S: Evolving but Still Pivotal
Plan S, launched by cOAlition S in 2018, remains one of the most aggressive and influential open access policies in the world. It requires research funded by participating agencies to be made immediately open, either in compliant OA journals or platforms or by deposit in a repository, under an open license (typically CC BY). In 2025, Plan S matured into a global standard-setter, influencing policy far beyond Europe. For a fuller explanation of the policy, see Demystifying Plan S.
The initial friction, particularly around hybrid journals and author freedom, has given way to a more strategic implementation. cOAlition S members stopped financially supporting transformative agreements and transformative journals as a principle after 31 December 2024, although individual funders may still back them as part of national strategies. Fully OA journals and platforms that meet technical, ethical, and economic standards are now favored. Compliance is a condition of funding, and cOAlition S monitors the effects of Plan S.
According to cOAlition S, a significant and growing proportion of funded research is now being published in fully open access journals or deposited in repositories that ensure immediate public access.
However, Plan S has not solved the APC problem. Top-tier publishers have exploited the OA mandate to hike fees: Nature’s own APC is now above €10,000 per article. cOAlition S has published “price transparency” requirements and called for APC caps, but adoption is spotty. There’s also a growing concern that wealthy institutions have adapted better than low—and middle-income universities, effectively entrenching a two-tiered publishing system.
Nonetheless, Plan S remains a landmark policy, and today it is less of a sledgehammer and more of a scalpel—still sharp but more targeted.
Latin America’s Diamond OA: Underrated, Still Leading
While the West debates Gold vs. Green, Latin America continues to lead quietly with its Diamond Open Access model—a system where publishing is free for both authors and readers. Platforms like RedALyC, SciELO, and Latindex have created a decentralized, public infrastructure for scholarly communication, rooted in state and university support rather than commercial interests.
A large share of the region’s peer-reviewed research is available through these open platforms, covering STEM, humanities, and even Indigenous knowledge. The region’s success stems from a fundamentally different philosophy: that research is a public good, not a commodity. Here, OA isn’t a business model. It’s an academic norm.
RedALyC and SciELO have also pushed technical innovation, implementing XML markup, persistent identifiers, usage metrics, and even ORCID integrations. They’re not just repositories; they’re fully functional publishing ecosystems.
That said, challenges remain. While the model is equitable, sustainability is a recurring issue. Government budget cuts, political upheavals, and weak currency valuations threaten long-term stability. Additionally, Latin American journals often lack visibility in global citation indices, limiting their international prestige, a critical factor for researchers chasing career advancement.
Still, Latin America’s model proves high-quality OA publishing can be done without turning authors into customers or readers into revenue streams.
United States: Zero Embargo, High Stakes
The U.S. has historically lagged behind Europe in national OA mandates, but the August 2022 Nelson Memo from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy flipped the script. It asked every federal research funder to end the 12-month embargo by the end of 2025. The NIH moved first, requiring zero-embargo deposit of accepted manuscripts in PubMed Central from 1 July 2025, and NSF applies the rule to awards made on or after 22 January 2026.
The policy’s future is now uncertain. In January 2026, Congress asked OSTP to report on its process for repealing the Nelson Memo, and by May 2026 OSTP was reported to be repealing it, although no formal repeal had been announced. The administration’s FY2027 budget request also proposes barring federal funds from paying high journal subscription and publishing costs, and NASA and NIST have said they will stop paying publication fees. The House Appropriations Committee has also asked NSF to pause implementation of new public access policies until the repeal is complete. Agency policies already in force, such as the NIH’s, still apply, so researchers should check each funder’s current rules.
This policy doesn’t require Gold OA or specific journals. Researchers can publish wherever they like, as long as they deposit the accepted manuscript in an approved repository (like PubMed Central, DOE PAGES, or agency-specific platforms) immediately.
That flexibility is key. It reduces dependency on APC-driven Gold OA, allowing for more affordable Green OA workflows. Several major institutions—including UC, Harvard, and MIT—have now implemented automated deposit workflows, integrating publisher APIs with institutional repositories.
Yet, compliance varies wildly across disciplines. Life sciences are thriving thanks to infrastructure like PubMed Central. However, the social sciences and humanities are struggling, lacking established repositories or clear mandates. Funding agencies have issued FAQs, workshops, and training materials, but without consistent enforcement, compliance is often left to researchers’ discretion.
The big challenge? Culture and convenience. Many researchers still prefer prestige journals that don’t support immediate OA, and institutional librarians are spread thin. Without further investment in OA infrastructure and staff, the zero-embargo policy could become more symbolic than systemic.
Still, as a federal policy covering billions in research funding, the U.S. model sets an essential precedent for openness at scale.
China: Quiet Domination Through Infrastructure
In China, open access is treated less as a philosophical ideal than as a strategic tool. The foundations were laid in May 2014, when the Chinese Academy of Sciences required its researchers to deposit final peer-reviewed manuscripts in institutional repositories within 12 months of publication, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China adopted a similar policy for the projects it funds.
Since then, China has invested heavily in national repositories, journal platforms and its own fully open access journals, such as National Science Open, launched in 2022 with support from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
The result is a large, state-led infrastructure that sits alongside, rather than inside, the Western debate over APCs and embargoes.
Chinese policies place less emphasis on open licenses such as CC BY than Plan S does, which creates some friction with Western standards but fits China’s broader focus on building its own infrastructure.
The message is clear: while others argue over APCs and embargoes, China is building faster, bigger, and smarter.
South Africa and the Rise of National OA Policies in the Global South
South Africa is emerging as a leader in coordinated open science policy among low- and middle-income countries. A draft National Open Science Policy was put out for consultation in 2022, and the Department of Science, Technology and Innovation released the final policy in March 2026, after government approval in December 2025, which aims to make publicly funded research and data more openly available.
How far that ambition becomes enforceable practice will depend on the implementation plans, funding and repository capacity that follow.
Like the UNESCO Recommendation, South Africa’s policy treats open access and open data together, which matters for reproducibility and trust in research.
Technical and financial constraints are real. But thanks to partnerships with the African Open Science Platform and UNESCO, South African institutions have received grants for infrastructure development, training, and even journal digitization programs.
The Global South rarely gets the spotlight in OA debates, but South Africa’s model offers a blueprint: national policy aligned with academic autonomy and international collaboration.
India: Stuck Between Ambition and Implementation
India has long advocated open access, and with good reason. With one of the world’s largest higher education systems and a fast-growing research output, India has every reason to support cost-free access to knowledge.
Its biggest recent move, however, is about reading rather than publishing. One Nation One Subscription, launched on 1 January 2025 with a budget of ₹6,000 crore for 2025–2027, gives more than 6,300 government institutions access to nearly 13,000 journals from 30 publishers. It widens access for Indian researchers but does not make their work open to the world, and the country still lacks an enforced national OA mandate. The draft Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (STIP), released for consultation in January 2021, proposed immediate deposit of publicly funded papers and a national subscription, but its OA provisions have not been implemented as a mandate.
India’s key OA infrastructure, such as Shodhganga (a digital thesis repository), is widely used but remains underfunded and poorly integrated. Many institutions run OA repositories, but only a few mandate self-archiving.
Interestingly, India’s strongest OA presence comes from society journals in STEM fields. These journals—often affiliated with engineering or medical bodies—often charge modest APCs, offer fast peer review, and assign DOIs, making them attractive and sustainable.
But India’s full potential remains untapped. A national OA strategy with enforceable mandates, platform investments, and funder incentives could transform the country into a global leader overnight.
Europe Beyond Plan S: Diversity or Fragmentation?
Europe, for all its regulatory energy, is now a mosaic of OA strategies. Plan S set the foundation, but individual countries have moved in different directions:
- The Netherlands reached 95% open access for peer-reviewed articles by authors at Dutch universities and university medical centers in 2024, up from 92% in 2023.
- Germany’s Projekt DEAL has reshaped negotiations but faces mounting criticism for APC bloat and limited transparency.
- France continues to champion Green OA, pushing researchers to deposit manuscripts into HAL, one of the most advanced open repositories in the world.
- Finland, Norway, and Sweden are investing in national OA publishing platforms to support diamond journals, particularly in the humanities and local languages.
Is this diversity a strength or a liability? Both. While experimentation is healthy, the lack of standardized discoverability, metadata, and indexing creates friction for cross-border collaboration. Efforts like OpenAIRE help, but there’s still work to do.
Still, Europe remains a powerhouse, with some of the highest open access rates in the world.
The Role of UNESCO: Global Coordination Without Bureaucratic Bloat?
UNESCO may not issue mandates, but its 2021 Recommendation on Open Science has quietly become the global OA constitution. It urges member states to adopt inclusive, equitable, and community-driven policies for access and openness across the research lifecycle.
A growing number of countries have aligned their national policies with UNESCO’s framework, and UNESCO has been developing ways to monitor progress against it.
What makes UNESCO unique is its neutrality and convening power. Unlike Plan S or U.S. federal policies, it brings together stakeholders from countries with vastly different capacities, funding models, and political systems. It also invests heavily in South-South collaboration and multilingual access.
The catch? UNESCO’s influence is only as strong as a country’s willingness to act. But as a norm-setter and catalyst, its role has been invaluable — and continues to grow.
What About the Publishers?
Let’s not kid ourselves. The biggest OA policy influencers still wear tailored suits and collect licensing fees. The largest commercial publishers have publicly embraced Open Access but remain committed to profit-first models.
APC-funded Gold OA is their favorite game. APCs at prestigious journals run into thousands of dollars, and Nature’s now exceeds €10,000. Price transparency remains elusive despite mounting pressure from funders and watchdogs.
Some publishers also sell add-on services, such as faster review or promotion, alongside open access.
There are exceptions. A few mid-sized publishers have launched diamond initiatives in collaboration with universities. But these are dwarfed by the industry’s relentless drive to monetize openness.
Ultimately, publishers respond to policy, not ethics. When funders and governments enforce mandates, publishers adapt. When left to self-regulate, they optimize for shareholders.
How to Develop an Open Access Policy That Works
For institutions and funders writing their own policy, the lessons above translate into a practical process. Start with a working group that includes researchers, librarians, research office staff, and students, so the policy reflects disciplinary norms rather than one department’s view. Consult early, agree on goals, and phase in requirements rather than imposing everything at once.
A good policy is specific. It says which outputs are covered (journal articles, conference papers, book chapters, and data), which version must be made open (usually the author accepted manuscript), where it goes (an institutional or subject repository), and when (ideally on publication, with no embargo).
It also settles rights. Rights retention, in which authors or their institution keep the right to share the accepted manuscript under an open license such as CC BY regardless of the publishing agreement, is now central to policies at Harvard, at cOAlition S funders, and at a growing number of UK universities. Our guide to Creative Commons licensing explains the options.
Then come money and infrastructure. If the policy allows gold OA, it needs a clear position on who pays APCs and which charges are reasonable, plus support for authors without funding. Repositories need interoperable metadata and long-term preservation, and deposit should be as automated as possible, as we describe in how to create open access workflows.
Finally, build in monitoring and review. Decide whether compliance is mandatory or encouraged, how it will be tracked, and what support or consequences follow. Review the policy regularly, because funder rules, such as the US agency policies discussed above, can change quickly.
Does Open Access Increase Citations?
Policy makers often justify OA by its reach, and the evidence is broadly supportive but not conclusive. A 2021 systematic review in PLOS ONE of 134 studies found that 47.8% reported an open access citation advantage, 27.6% found none, and 23.9% found one only in some subsets. Results vary by field: a study in Ecosphere found an advantage for ecology papers, while 37 of the 134 studies in the review found none. The stronger case for OA policy is access itself, as we explain in how open access impacts research.
Conclusion
Open access is no longer about idealism. It’s about implementation. The best policies are those that deliver access without sacrificing equity, and that challenge the publishing status quo without creating new gatekeepers.
Latin America’s diamond OA remains a model of equitable infrastructure. Plan S continues to wield influence through strict enforcement. The U.S. zero-embargo rules have redefined repository-led OA, even as their future is debated. And China, ever pragmatic, is investing in infrastructure that could quietly dominate the global stage.
Open access is not one policy or one direction—it’s a contest of visions. Some want openness as a right. Others see it as a tool. And a few, unfortunately, treat it as a market opportunity.
The future of OA will be determined not by declarations but by action—and by who controls the tools, the platforms, and ultimately, the story of knowledge itself.