What is the Nelson Memo - Featured

What Is the Nelson Memo? The U.S. Plan for Free Access to Federally Funded Research

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

Few would ask: What is the Nelson Memo of 2022?

In August 2022, a policy directive quietly issued by the White House began rippling through the research and academic communities. Known as the Nelson Memo, this policy is far from bureaucratic filler. It’s a landmark shift in the U.S. government’s stance on open science, research accessibility, and public accountability. The memo mandates that all peer-reviewed publications and supporting research data resulting from federally funded research be made freely and immediately accessible to the public—no more 12-month embargoes, no more hiding behind paywalls.

Named after Dr. Alondra Nelson, then Acting Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), this memo signals a seismic move toward democratizing knowledge. It doesn’t merely expand on the Obama-era 2013 OSTP memo—it reinvents the entire architecture of public access to government-funded science. This article dives deep into the origins, structure, implications, challenges, and potential future of the Nelson Memo, helping you understand why this single policy may redefine scientific publishing as we know it.

The Origins of the Nelson Memo

The Nelson Memo did not appear out of thin air. It builds directly on earlier open access policies, particularly the 2013 OSTP memorandum issued during the Obama administration. That earlier memo required federal agencies with over $100 million in annual research and development expenditures to develop plans for making research publications publicly accessible within 12 months of publication. The policy was a step in the right direction but had clear limitations—particularly the embargo period and the exclusion of smaller agencies.

Over time, the scientific community, open access advocates, and many in the general public called for something bolder. Research funded with taxpayer dollars, they argued, should be immediately and freely available. Meanwhile, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the urgency of sharing research findings in real time gained unprecedented attention. Preprints, open data sets, and rapid collaboration became the norm rather than the exception. These circumstances made pushing for a more aggressive policy politically and scientifically feasible, which ultimately took shape as the Nelson Memo.

Dr. Nelson’s leadership was pivotal. A sociologist of science and technology, she brought a unique perspective to OSTP that emphasized equity, transparency, and the social good. Her vision for public access was not just technical—it was deeply rooted in the idea that knowledge, especially when funded by public money, should be a public good.

What the Nelson Memo Requires

The memo, officially titled “Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research,” lays out a series of specific requirements for federal agencies. These agencies must update their public access policies to eliminate any embargo period on peer-reviewed publications resulting from federally funded research. In other words, publications must be made available to the public the moment they are published.

This mandate includes not only the articles themselves but also the data underlying those publications. Agencies are directed to ensure that datasets are made available in public repositories, provided there are no legal, ethical, or security concerns. This reflects a growing emphasis on open data as a foundational aspect of reproducible and trustworthy science.

Agencies must submit updated public access plans by a specified deadline—180 days from the memo’s release for those with over $100 million in R&D budgets, and 360 days for those below that threshold. Full implementation is expected by December 31, 2025. The memo also emphasizes the use of digital persistent identifiers (e.g., DOIs for articles and ORCIDs for researchers), robust metadata standards, and the need for public feedback during policy development.

Why This Matters: A New Paradigm for Public Access

The Nelson Memo is not just a policy change; it’s a philosophical pivot. It underscores a new understanding of the relationship between science and society. When the public funds research through taxes or national agencies, there is a moral imperative to ensure that this research is available to them.

This shift also aligns with a broader global movement toward open science. Initiatives like Plan S in Europe, which mandates open access publishing for publicly funded research, and UNESCO’s 2021 Recommendation on Open Science are clear indicators that the old publishing model is under increasing scrutiny. The U.S., often a laggard in mandating open access at the federal level, is finally catching up.

Furthermore, this memo challenges entrenched commercial interests in the scholarly publishing ecosystem. Large academic publishers have long profited from paywalling publicly funded research, creating a system where taxpayers essentially pay twice—once to fund the research and again to read it. The Nelson Memo disrupts that cycle, aiming to rebalance power toward the public and the researchers themselves.

Challenges and Concerns from Publishers

Unsurprisingly, not everyone is cheering. Commercial publishers, particularly those that rely heavily on subscription revenues, have voiced concern about the financial impact of immediate open access. For decades, the dominant model of academic publishing has depended on institutional subscriptions, creating revenue streams that support journal operations, editorial workflows, and profit margins.

Critics argue that without embargoes, publishers may lose a significant portion of their income, especially from libraries and institutions that previously paid for early access. Some worry that this could lead to a rise in article processing charges (APCs), shifting the cost burden from readers to authors or their institutions. That, in turn, raises equity concerns—will underfunded researchers or institutions be able to afford to publish?

Others have questioned the feasibility of implementing open data mandates. Sensitive data, proprietary information, and datasets requiring extensive curation are not easily deposited in repositories. And there are real issues around data privacy, especially in biomedical or behavioral research. Still, the memo provides flexibility in these areas, acknowledging the need for thoughtful exceptions.

Impacts on Researchers and Institutions

For researchers, the Nelson Memo represents both opportunity and obligation. On the one hand, it promises increased visibility, broader readership, and potentially greater impact for their work. Studies consistently show that open access articles receive more citations and downloads than their paywalled counterparts.

On the other hand, it introduces new responsibilities. Researchers will need to ensure their publications are deposited in compliant repositories, that metadata standards are met, and that underlying datasets are properly shared. Institutions, especially libraries and research offices, will need to ramp up support services to help faculty navigate this new landscape.

In the long run, the policy may stimulate innovation in scholarly communication. Institutional repositories, preprint servers, and open access journals may see renewed investment and attention. It could also accelerate the shift toward new peer review models, post-publication reviews, and other experiments in evaluating and disseminating research.

Equity, Inclusion, and the Democratization of Knowledge

One of the memo’s most striking features is its explicit emphasis on equity. It’s not just about access—it’s about equitable access. The memo calls on agencies to ensure that public access policies consider the needs of underserved communities, minority-serving institutions, and early-career researchers. This includes providing support for compliance, minimizing financial barriers to publishing, and ensuring that open data infrastructure is inclusive and interoperable.

In practical terms, this could mean providing funding for APCs in cases where researchers lack institutional support. It could also mean expanding digital infrastructure in rural and underserved regions or creating user-friendly and multilingual repository platforms. The memo doesn’t dictate solutions, but it clearly sets the tone: equity is not an afterthought—it is central to the open science mission.

The Global Context and International Momentum

While the Nelson Memo is a U.S. policy, its ripple effects are international. The global research community is increasingly interconnected, and national policies rarely operate in isolation. The memo positions the U.S. alongside other open access leaders such as the European Union, Canada, and Latin America, where funder mandates for open science have already transformed publishing norms.

Plan S, launched by cOAlition S in Europe, has similar goals: immediate open access, author rights retention, and repository-based sharing. The Nelson Memo doesn’t adopt Plan S wholesale but resonates strongly with its objectives. Compatibility between access policies will likely influence international collaborations, and we may soon see further harmonization.

At the same time, cultural differences in academic publishing remain. For example, U.S. researchers often publish in society journals or hybrid models, which may not fully align with the zero-embargo requirement. Bridging these gaps will require nuanced strategies, agency-specific adaptations, and sustained dialogue across borders.

Looking Ahead: What Comes Next?

The memo sets ambitious goals, but implementation will be the real test. Federal agencies must now translate policy into practice—defining repository requirements, setting metadata standards, and ensuring compliance without overwhelming researchers. Technology will play a key role, with automation, persistent identifiers, and AI-based metadata tools likely forming the backbone of scalable solutions.

We can also expect a shift in power dynamics. Publishers that fail to adapt may lose relevance, while new players—repository platforms, institutional publishing services, and open infrastructure projects—may rise. This could foster a more pluralistic and competitive publishing ecosystem, better aligned with the values of transparency, accountability, and public service.

Researchers, librarians, and administrators will need to stay informed and engaged. Workshops, training sessions, and community discussions will become vital as universities roll out support structures. As metrics evolve to reflect openness and reuse, not just impact factors, there may be a cultural change in assessing academic contributions.

Conclusion

The Nelson Memo is not just another bureaucratic directive—it’s a moonshot for open science in the United States. Mandating immediate and free access to federally funded research challenges outdated publishing models, promotes public trust, and asserts a bold vision of science as a public good. In a world increasingly shaped by data and research, access is power—and this memo hands that power back to the people who fund the work in the first place: the public.

Of course, there are still challenges to navigate, from financial sustainability to data ethics. But the path is clearer now than it has ever been. The Nelson Memo is both a policy document and a cultural signal: the future of science is open, and it starts now.

Leave a comment