Open access is no longer optional — and the requirements keep tightening
For most of the last two decades, open access was a policy preference — something funders encouraged, institutions promoted, and publishers navigated on their own terms. That era is ending. The shift from encouragement to requirement has accelerated sharply, with major funding bodies in Europe, the United States, and beyond now attaching open access conditions directly to grant awards. Non-compliance doesn’t just create friction. It can mean funded research cannot be submitted to a non-compliant journal at all.
The challenge for publishers isn’t understanding that open access mandates exist — it’s keeping up with the operational requirements they impose. Licence tracking, embargo management, version deposit workflows, APC processing, and compliance reporting all create new demands on production teams that were designed around a simpler model. Most editorial workflows haven’t caught up.
- Licence type not collected at submission — compliance status unknown until post-acceptance
- Embargo periods managed manually in spreadsheets with no automated deposit triggers
- Author requests for CC BY licences handled as exceptions rather than as standard workflow
- APC invoicing disconnected from editorial decisions — creating delays and author confusion
- No systematic check that the deposited version matches funder requirements for accepted manuscripts
- Compliance reports assembled by hand from records spread across multiple systems
Each of these gaps is manageable when the volume is low. At scale — across multiple journals, multiple funders, and hundreds of funded authors — they become a source of ongoing operational risk and reputational exposure.
The mandates aren’t uniform — and that’s what makes them hard to manage
If every funder required the same thing, compliance would be a solved problem. The difficulty is that they don’t. Plan S cOAlition S members, the NIH Public Access Policy, UKRI’s open access requirements, the Wellcome Trust, and institutional mandates from individual universities all carry different licence requirements, embargo rules, version policies, and deposit timeframes. A journal serving an international author base may be operating under a dozen overlapping frameworks simultaneously.
“The compliance challenge isn’t knowing that mandates exist. It’s having a workflow that handles their differences systematically — without routing every funded article through a manual exception process.”
— The operational reality facing multi-journal publishers in 2026
The variation is significant and consequential. An article funded by the NIH needs to be deposited in PubMed Central within 12 months of publication. An article funded by a Plan S signatory funder must be immediately available under a CC BY licence with no embargo at all. A Wellcome-funded paper requires the accepted manuscript to be deposited on acceptance, not on publication. Getting any of these wrong — even inadvertently — puts the author’s funder relationship at risk and the journal’s standing with that funder community.
The major mandates your workflow needs to accommodate
Building a production workflow that handles compliance systematically
The answer to mandate complexity isn’t a compliance officer manually tracking funder requirements per article. It’s a workflow in which funder information is captured at submission, compliance requirements are identified automatically, and the correct licence, deposit, and reporting actions are triggered at the right production stages without editorial intervention.
DrPaper’s compliance layer is designed to make open access requirements a built-in property of the workflow — not an exception process layered on top of it. Funder data captured at submission drives licence selection, deposit timing, and reporting outputs automatically, with editorial teams alerted only when a decision or exception genuinely requires their input.
How to make your production workflow mandate-ready
Compliance requirements are determined by funding source. If that information isn’t collected until late in the workflow, every compliance action downstream becomes reactive. Structured submission forms that collect funder names and grant identifiers upfront give you the data you need to handle the article correctly from the start.
Once funder identity is known, the applicable licence type, embargo period, deposit repository, and version requirements can be determined automatically — without the editorial team needing to consult a policy database for each article. This mapping should be maintained centrally and updated as policies evolve.
Wellcome requires deposit on acceptance; NIH requires it within 12 months of publication. These are different workflow triggers. A compliant production system fires the correct deposit action at the correct stage automatically — rather than relying on an editor remembering which rule applies to which article.
For articles requiring CC BY licences, the licence should be assigned automatically based on funder requirements — not left as a manual selection that depends on author awareness. APC invoicing should be linked to the editorial decision event, so billing and compliance move together without additional coordination overhead.
Funder reporting requirements ask publishers to demonstrate that funded articles were handled correctly. If that evidence has to be assembled from emails and spreadsheets after the fact, it’s both slow and fragile. A workflow that captures funder and compliance data systematically can generate audit-ready reports on demand.
What a mandate-ready workflow delivers
- Funder compliance handled automatically — no manual exception routing per funded article
- Correct licences assigned at the right stage without depending on author or editor awareness
- Deposit actions triggered at the exact production stage each funder requires
- APC processing connected to editorial decisions — no billing delays or author confusion
- Audit-ready compliance reports available on demand rather than assembled under deadline
- Reduced risk of funder relationship damage from inadvertent non-compliance
Frequently asked questions about open access mandates
What is Plan S and which journals does it affect?
Plan S is an open access initiative backed by cOAlition S — a group of major research funders across Europe and beyond, including the European Research Council, UKRI, and national funders in Sweden, France, the Netherlands, and other countries. It requires that all research funded by cOAlition S members be published immediately open access, with no embargo, under a CC BY or equivalent licence. Any journal receiving submissions from authors funded by these bodies is affected by Plan S compliance requirements.
What is the difference between green and gold open access?
Gold open access means the version of record — the final published article — is immediately freely available on the publisher’s platform, typically funded through an article processing charge. Green open access means the author deposits an accepted manuscript version in a repository, which is made freely available either immediately or after an embargo period. Different mandates accept different routes: Plan S and UKRI accept both gold and green; some funders specify one or the other.
How do open access mandates affect article processing charges?
Many open access mandates require or strongly prefer gold OA publication, which typically involves an APC paid by the author, their institution, or directly by the funder. Managing APCs in a mandate-compliant workflow means connecting APC invoicing to editorial decisions, verifying funder eligibility for APC waivers or subsidies, and ensuring the licence assigned matches the funder requirement attached to the funding. Disconnected billing processes are one of the most common sources of OA compliance gaps.
How does DrPaper help journals manage open access compliance?
DrPaper captures funder and grant information at submission, maps it automatically to the applicable compliance requirements, and triggers the correct licence assignment, deposit action, and reporting outputs at each production stage. Editors are alerted only when genuine decisions are required — not for routine compliance steps that the workflow can handle automatically. Compliance reports can be generated on demand from data captured throughout the editorial process, rather than assembled manually after the fact.
Stay compliant without the manual overhead.
DrPaper builds open access compliance into your production workflow — so every funded article is handled correctly, automatically, from submission to deposit.
Request early access No commitment required · Setup in days, not months