CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: journal finder

  • Journal Finder Tools Compared for Plan S Authors

    Springer, Elsevier, Wiley and Taylor & Francis each run a free journal finder that matches a manuscript’s title, abstract or keywords to journals in their own portfolio — but none of them checks Plan S open-access compliance. That verification step belongs to cOAlition S’s separate Journal Checker Tool, which authors should run after shortlisting journals, not instead of it.

    A journal finder is a publisher-run search tool that recommends candidate journals for a manuscript by matching its subject area, title or abstract text against that publisher’s own list of active titles. This distinction matters more than it first appears: a Plan S-funded author who only uses a publisher’s finder can end up with a well-matched journal that is not, in fact, a compliant venue for their grant.

    What Do Publisher Journal Finder Tools Actually Do?

    Every major publisher-run journal finder performs the same core function: it takes a manuscript’s title, abstract or keywords and returns a ranked list of journals from that publisher’s own portfolio likely to fit the manuscript’s scope. None of them search across competing publishers, and none independently verify a journal’s open-access route against a specific funder’s mandate.

    • Input is usually a title, abstract or a short set of keywords, sometimes with a subject-area filter.
    • Output is a ranked shortlist, often annotated with impact metrics, acceptance rate or review speed.
    • Coverage is limited to titles the publisher itself owns or manages — this is the single biggest limitation for cross-publisher comparison shopping.

    How Do Springer, Elsevier, Wiley and Taylor & Francis Compare?

    Elsevier’s Journal Finder lets authors search by journal title, subject area or aims and scope, or run a “match my abstract” search against Elsevier’s own journal list. Springer Nature’s Journal Suggester, reached via the Springer Nature Link journals hub, matches manuscript details against the combined Springer, Nature, BMC and Palgrave Macmillan portfolio and surfaces open-access funding options alongside journal suggestions. Wiley’s Journal Finder states on its own page that it lets authors “search and filter across 1,800+ journals” by keyword, subject or abstract match. Taylor & Francis’s Journal Suggester, hosted on its Author Services site, uses a short five-question, AI-assisted form to recommend titles from the Taylor & Francis and Routledge list.

    Tool Provider Input method Portfolio scope Checks Plan S compliance? Best for
    Journal Finder Elsevier Title/abstract match, subject/scope search Elsevier’s own journals No Fast shortlisting within Elsevier imprints
    Journal Suggester Springer Nature Title, abstract or keyword input Springer, Nature, BMC, Palgrave Macmillan No (shows OA funding options, not funder-mandate checks) Authors targeting Springer Nature imprints
    Journal Finder Wiley Keyword, title or abstract search, with filters 1,800+ Wiley journals Partial — separate Wiley Author Compliance Tool checks funder policy Discipline-specific filtering within Wiley’s list
    Journal Suggester Taylor & Francis Five-question AI-assisted form Taylor & Francis / Routledge portfolio No Quick AI-generated shortlist
    Scopus Source Search Elsevier (Scopus) Lookup by ISSN or title, not manuscript matching Scopus-indexed sources, cross-publisher No Verifying CiteScore or indexing status of a journal already in mind
    Journal Checker Tool cOAlition S Funder, institution and journal input Any journal, cross-publisher Yes — this is its sole purpose Confirming a compliant open-access route before submission

    Does Scopus Have Its Own Journal Finder?

    Scopus, Elsevier’s abstract-and-citation database, does not run a manuscript-matching journal finder in the way Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley or Taylor & Francis do. Its Scopus Source Search instead looks up journals you already have in mind, by ISSN or title, to confirm indexing status and metrics such as CiteScore.

    Authors who search “journal finder scopus” are usually trying to do one of two different things, and conflating them causes wasted time. If the goal is to discover new candidate journals for a manuscript, a publisher’s own finder (or a cross-publisher tool such as JournalGuide) is the right starting point. If the goal is to confirm that a journal you have already chosen is Scopus-indexed, Scopus Source Search is the correct tool, not a substitute for journal discovery.

    Do Any of These Tools Check Plan S Compliance?

    Not directly, with one partial exception. Plan S, launched by cOAlition S in 2018 and taking effect for grants awarded from 2021, requires that publications from funded research appear in a fully open-access journal, on a compliant platform, or via a transformative arrangement recognised by the funder. Publisher journal finders match content to scope; they do not check a specific funder’s mandate against a specific journal’s business model.

    Wiley is the partial exception: alongside its Journal Finder, it offers a separate Author Compliance Tool that checks whether a given Wiley journal’s policies align with a named funder’s requirements. For every other publisher listed above, compliance checking sits outside the finder entirely.

    The authoritative cross-publisher tool is cOAlition S’s Journal Checker Tool (JCT). It requires three inputs — the author’s cOAlition S funder, their institution, and the intended journal — and returns whether that journal offers a Plan S-compliant route: full open access, a transformative agreement, or a self-archiving right that satisfies the funder’s policy. Authors should treat this as a mandatory second step after shortlisting journals with a publisher finder, never as an optional extra.

    Self-archiving (green open-access) rights specifically were historically checked via Sherpa/RoMEO. That lookup function has since migrated into Jisc’s Open Policy Finder, which now performs the same self-archiving and copyright policy search that Sherpa/RoMEO ran for over two decades, and remains a useful companion to the JCT when a transformative agreement is not available. Research administration teams tracking institutional compliance across multiple funders often run the JCT and Open Policy Finder together as a two-step check before an author submits.

    Common Questions From Plan S Authors

    Is Wiley JournalFinder free to use?

    Yes. Wiley’s Journal Finder is a free public tool at wiley.com that lets authors search or filter across 1,800+ Wiley journals by keyword, subject area or manuscript abstract. No login or subscription is required to generate a shortlist, though saving results and using the separate Author Compliance Tool may require a free Wiley account.

    What are the alternatives to Wiley Journal Finder?

    Authors publishing outside Wiley can use Elsevier’s Journal Finder, the Springer Nature Journal Suggester, or the Taylor & Francis Journal Suggester, each matching a manuscript to that publisher’s own portfolio. Cross-publisher alternatives include JournalGuide and Scopus Source Search, though neither replaces a funder-specific Plan S compliance check.

    What is Sherpa Romeo mainly used for?

    Sherpa/RoMEO was historically used to check a journal’s self-archiving policy — whether authors could deposit a preprint, accepted manuscript or published version in a repository. Its self-archiving data has since migrated into Jisc’s Open Policy Finder, which now performs the same green open-access policy lookup for Plan S authors.

    Is Wiley better than Elsevier?

    Neither is objectively “better” — each journal finder only searches that publisher’s own portfolio. Wiley’s tool covers 1,800+ titles with subject filters, while Elsevier’s adds an abstract-matching search across its list. The right choice depends on which publisher’s journals suit the manuscript’s discipline and the author’s funder requirements, not on the tool itself.

    For research administrators and institutional open-access teams, the practical takeaway is procedural rather than technical: publisher journal finders solve the discovery problem, but only a funder-aware checker like the JCT solves the compliance problem, and treating the two as interchangeable is the most common cause of post-acceptance compliance disputes. As more funders align with cOAlition S principles, expect publisher finders to integrate compliance flags directly — Wiley’s Author Compliance Tool is an early sign of that direction — but until that integration is universal, running a publisher finder followed by the Journal Checker Tool remains the safest two-step workflow for Plan S authors.

  • Predatory Journal Checker vs Plan S Compliance

    A Plan S compliant journal is not automatically screened by a predatory journal checker: Plan S tests open-access licensing and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) registration, not editorial integrity or peer-review conduct. The two checks answer different questions, and treating DOAJ/Plan S clearance as proof a journal is legitimate leaves a real compliance gap that research administrators need to close separately.

    A predatory journal checker is a tool, checklist, or reference list — such as the Think. Check. Submit. checklist, Cabells’ Predatory Reports, or the archived Beall’s List — used to test whether a journal’s peer review, editorial board, and fee practices are genuine rather than a vehicle for harvesting article-processing charges.

    What is a predatory journal checker?

    A predatory journal checker evaluates the operational and editorial conduct of a journal rather than its licensing terms. It looks at whether peer review actually happens, whether the editorial board is real and contactable, whether article-processing charges are disclosed upfront, and whether the publisher’s indexing claims can be verified.

    Common red flags that these tools and checklists are built to catch include:

    • Unsolicited, aggressive email invitations promising rapid publication
    • No transparent article-processing-charge (APC) schedule until after acceptance
    • An editorial board listing academics without their knowledge or consent
    • A journal scope so broad it covers unrelated disciplines
    • Fabricated or unverifiable impact-factor and indexing claims

    These are the criteria a checker tests. None of them is what Plan S compliance actually checks — which is the source of the confusion this article addresses.

    Does Plan S compliance screen for predatory journals?

    Not directly. Plan S is a funder mandate — led by cOAlition S — requiring that publicly funded research be published open access under specific licensing terms. Its technical requirements state that a fully open-access journal must be listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), or apply for DOAJ listing within one year of publishing its first article, to count as a compliant venue.

    DOAJ listing is a proxy signal, not a predatory-publishing audit. cOAlition S guidance separately points authors toward the Think. Check. Submit. checklist for journal-selection due diligence — a clear indication that cOAlition S itself does not treat DOAJ/Plan S clearance as a substitute for a dedicated predatory check. Responsibility for the final journal-selection decision sits with the researcher and their institution, not with the funder’s compliance rule.

    DOAJ listing vs a dedicated predatory journal checker

    DOAJ vetting and a predatory journal checker overlap in intent — both aim to exclude disreputable venues — but they differ in scope, update frequency, and what they miss. DOAJ’s 2014–2016 re-application process is a useful illustration: it removed roughly 3,300 previously listed journals that failed revised inclusion criteria, which shows DOAJ listing is a snapshot assessment, not a continuously monitored guarantee.

    Mechanism What it verifies What it misses Best used for
    Plan S / DOAJ listing Open-access licence terms; baseline transparency criteria at time of listing Ongoing editorial conduct; peer-review quality after listing Confirming funder-mandate eligibility
    Predatory journal checker (Think. Check. Submit., Cabells, Beall’s archive) Editorial board authenticity, peer-review conduct, fee transparency Funder licensing compliance Author-level due diligence before submission
    Scopus / Web of Science journal check Active indexing status, citation metrics, discontinued-title flags Newer or non-English-language legitimate journals not yet indexed Cross-checking indexing claims a journal makes about itself
    Publisher/journal finder tools Journal-manuscript fit by scope and audience Legitimacy screening entirely — these tools assume the candidate pool is already vetted Narrowing a shortlist of already-verified journals

    What does a Scopus journal check add?

    A Scopus journal check confirms whether a title is actively indexed, flags titles that have been discontinued from Scopus for quality reasons, and surfaces citation-based metrics. This is a useful cross-check against a journal’s own indexing claims — predatory titles frequently claim indexing status they do not have — but Scopus coverage is not designed as a predatory-publishing screen and does not evaluate peer-review conduct directly.

    It is also asymmetric: a legitimate new journal may not yet be Scopus-indexed, so absence from Scopus is not itself proof of a predatory operation. Administrators should treat a Scopus check as one data point in a layered process, not a standalone verdict.

    How should administrators layer both checks?

    Institutions handling funder-mandate compliance and research-integrity screening as two separate workstreams should merge them into one journal-selection workflow. A practical sequence:

    1. Confirm funder eligibility first. Check DOAJ listing (or ROAD registration) to establish Plan S / open-access mandate compliance.
    2. Run a dedicated predatory check second. Apply the Think. Check. Submit. checklist, or consult Cabells’ Predatory Reports where the institution has a subscription, against the same candidate journal.
    3. Cross-check indexing claims. Verify any Scopus, Web of Science, or PubMed indexing the journal advertises against the indexing service’s own database.
    4. Escalate ambiguous cases to the institution’s research-integrity office or library scholarly-communications team rather than relying on a single automated pass/fail signal.
    5. Record the outcome in the researcher’s submission file, since funders and REF-style assessment exercises increasingly expect an audit trail of due-diligence steps, not just a final compliance flag.

    This sequencing matters because each mechanism fails differently: DOAJ/Plan S can clear a journal on licensing grounds while missing recent editorial decline; a predatory checker can flag conduct issues DOAJ has not yet caught up with; Scopus can catch a false indexing claim that neither of the other two checks is built to test.

    Common questions about predatory journal screening

    How do you check if a journal is predatory?

    Run the Think. Check. Submit. checklist against the journal, verify the editorial board members individually, confirm the article-processing charge is disclosed before submission, and cross-check any indexing claims (Scopus, DOAJ) directly against the indexing service rather than trusting the journal’s own website.

    What is a red flag for a predatory journal?

    Aggressive, unsolicited invitation emails promising unusually fast peer review are the most cited red flag. Other consistent signals include an editorial board that cannot be independently verified, a scope spanning unrelated disciplines, and article-processing fees disclosed only after acceptance.

    How do you check if a journal is reputable?

    Confirm active listing in DOAJ or an equivalent recognised index, verify the publisher belongs to COPE or a comparable ethics body, check that peer-review policy is published and specific, and confirm the editorial board’s affiliations independently rather than trusting journal-supplied contact details.

    What is considered a predatory journal?

    A predatory journal is one that charges publication fees while failing to provide the genuine editorial and peer-review services legitimate scholarly journals promise, prioritising revenue from article-processing charges over publication quality and research integrity, per definitions developed by COPE and reflected in Frandsen et al.’s peer-reviewed literature review.

    Implications and the path forward

    For institutional research offices, the practical implication is procedural: a single “is this journal Plan S compliant?” check cannot double as a research-integrity sign-off, and treating it that way creates audit risk when a funder or REF-style exercise later asks how a submission venue was verified. Layering a DOAJ/Plan S check with a dedicated predatory journal checker and an indexing cross-check is not duplicative effort — each step tests a distinct failure mode that the others do not cover.

    As open-access mandates expand and predatory operations grow more sophisticated at mimicking legitimate indexing and DOAJ-style transparency signals, the gap between funder-mandate compliance and editorial-integrity verification is likely to widen rather than close. Institutions that formalise the layered workflow now — rather than relying on DOAJ/Plan S status as an implicit predatory-publishing seal of approval — will be better positioned as funders tighten reporting expectations around journal-selection due diligence.

  • Open Policy Finder: The Sherpa Romeo Successor

    Open Policy Finder is Jisc’s consolidated platform for checking publisher self-archiving rules and funder open-access requirements. It replaced Sherpa Romeo, Sherpa Juliet and Sherpa Fact with a single search interface in 2024, and it is now the standard first stop for research administrators running Plan S or rights-retention compliance checks. Search one journal or publisher and see accepted-manuscript deposit rules, embargo periods and funder mandates together, rather than cross-checking three separate Sherpa tools.

    Open Policy Finder is a free, Jisc-managed database that standardises open-access self-archiving and funder-policy information for thousands of publishers and major funders worldwide, built on the data and legacy of the Sherpa services founded in 2006 at the University of Nottingham’s Centre for Research Communications.

    What is Open Policy Finder?

    Open Policy Finder is an online platform, managed by Jisc, that aggregates and standardises open-access policies for publishers, journals, books and funders into one searchable index. It answers the question research administrators ask most often: which version of a manuscript — submitted, accepted or published — can be deposited in a repository, and after how long an embargo.

    The service traces its lineage to Sherpa Romeo, founded in 2006 at the University of Nottingham’s Centre for Research Communications and later transferred to Jisc. Rather than running Romeo, Juliet and Fact as three separate lookups, Jisc rebuilt them as one platform, launched under the Open Policy Finder name. Sherpa Romeo as a standalone service no longer exists; its URL now redirects to openpolicyfinder.jisc.ac.uk.

    According to Jisc’s published service profile, Open Policy Finder currently holds data on 3,503 global publisher open-access policies, including 28,000 journal-level policies, plus 178 major global funders’ open-access requirements. Its companion directory, OpenDOAR, separately tracks 5,868 institutional repositories worldwide, supporting global harvesting and aggregation of deposited outputs.

    How does Open Policy Finder differ from Sherpa Romeo?

    The core content is inherited from Sherpa Romeo, but the presentation and scope have changed substantially. Romeo was known for a colour-coded traffic-light system (green, blue, yellow, white) requiring a key to interpret; Open Policy Finder replaces this with plain-language labels — “Published,” “Accepted” and “Submitted” — describing which manuscript version a policy applies to, without needing a legend.

    Three previously separate Sherpa services are now unified behind one search box:

    • Sherpa Romeo’s publisher and journal self-archiving policies
    • Sherpa Juliet’s funder open-access policy summaries
    • Sherpa Fact’s journal-versus-funder compliance checking

    Open Policy Finder also extends coverage beyond what Romeo offered: it now includes open-access book policies searchable by publisher, and a dedicated Transitional Agreement look-up showing which “read and publish” or “publish and read” deals an institution holds and which journals they cover. Neither feature existed in the legacy Sherpa Romeo interface.

    How does it fit a Plan S / rights-retention compliance workflow?

    cOAlition S, the funder consortium behind Plan S, requires that funded research be made immediately open access on publication, either via a compliant journal/platform route or via self-archiving of the accepted manuscript under an open licence. Since 2021, cOAlition S funders and UKRI have applied a Rights Retention Strategy (RRS): authors declare, at submission, that any resulting accepted manuscript carries a CC BY licence, regardless of the publisher’s own self-archiving terms.

    This is precisely where Open Policy Finder earns its place in a compliance workflow. A research administrator checking whether a submission will satisfy a funder’s Plan S obligations needs three facts at once: the journal’s standard embargo, whether the publisher accepts a rights-retention statement or CC BY licence on the accepted manuscript, and whether the funder’s own policy overrides the journal default. Open Policy Finder’s unified record — journal policy plus funder policy in one view — replaces what used to require cross-referencing Sherpa Romeo and Sherpa Juliet separately, then manually checking Sherpa Fact for the funder-journal match.

    A practical compliance check typically runs as follows:

    1. Search the target journal or publisher in Open Policy Finder.
    2. Check the accepted-manuscript (“Accepted”) deposit terms and embargo length.
    3. Cross-reference the relevant funder’s policy (for example, a cOAlition S member or UKRI) shown in the same record.
    4. Check the Transitional Agreement look-up if the institution holds a read-and-publish deal with that publisher.
    5. Record the compliant route (repository deposit, RRS declaration, or agreement-covered gold OA) before submission, not after acceptance.

    What data and features does the platform cover?

    The table below summarises what changed between the legacy Sherpa suite and the current Open Policy Finder platform.

    Feature Legacy Sherpa suite (pre-2024) Open Policy Finder (current)
    Publisher/journal self-archiving policies Sherpa Romeo, colour-coded Included, plain-language labels
    Funder open-access policies Sherpa Juliet, separate search Included in the same record
    Funder–journal compliance check Sherpa Fact, separate tool Built into the unified search
    Open-access book policies Not covered Searchable by publisher
    Transitional Agreement look-up Not available Dedicated look-up tool
    Publisher policies indexed ~2,500 (Romeo, historic) 3,503, including 28,000 journal-level policies
    Funders indexed Fewer, via Juliet 178 major global funders
    Access model Free, web UI Free, web UI plus open API

    All Open Policy Finder data is published under a Creative Commons licence (CC BY-NC-SA for most content), and the underlying dataset remains free to query via its open API — a design choice that lets institutional repository systems and compliance dashboards pull policy data directly rather than screen-scraping.

    Frequently asked questions

    How do I find open access journals?

    Search the journal or publisher name directly in Open Policy Finder to see its self-archiving and open-access route. For fully open-access titles specifically, cross-check the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), which indexes journals that publish exclusively OA under a peer-reviewed quality standard.

    What is an open access policy?

    An open-access policy is a publisher’s or funder’s stated rule on how and when a research output may be made freely available — covering which manuscript version can be deposited, any embargo period, and licensing terms. Open Policy Finder standardises these policies into one comparable format across publishers and funders.

    Is Sherpa Romeo still available?

    No. Sherpa Romeo was retired as a standalone service when Jisc consolidated it with Sherpa Juliet and Sherpa Fact into Open Policy Finder in 2024. Its former web address now redirects to the new platform, and all of its publisher policy data has been migrated and is actively maintained there.

    Do I have to pay for open access?

    Not always. Many journals offer a free, no-cost “green” self-archiving route — depositing the accepted manuscript in a repository after an embargo — alongside a paid “gold” article processing charge (APC) route for immediate open publication. Open Policy Finder shows both routes, plus any Transitional Agreement that may waive the APC.

    What this means for research administrators

    For institutions running Plan S, UKRI or REF-linked open-access compliance checks, the consolidation into Open Policy Finder removes a genuine workflow inefficiency: three separate Sherpa look-ups have become one. Research administrators building institutional compliance guidance, submission checklists, or automated repository-deposit reminders should update internal documentation and any embedded links that still reference “Sherpa Romeo,” since the standalone service is discontinued.

    The open API is the detail most compliance teams should act on now. Because policy data can be queried programmatically, institutional repository platforms and CRIS systems can surface a journal’s current self-archiving terms directly inside the deposit workflow, rather than requiring staff to check a separate website — reducing the single biggest source of missed Plan S embargo deadlines: manual, one-off policy lookups that go stale between check and submission.

    As transitional agreements expand and funder rights-retention policies mature, expect Open Policy Finder’s funder-policy and Transitional Agreement data to become the reference layer that institutional research-administration systems query by default, in the way Sherpa Romeo’s colour codes once were for a previous generation of repository managers.

  • Plan S Journal Checker Tool: A Step-by-Step Compliance Guide

    What Is the Plan S Journal Checker Tool?

    The Plan S Journal Checker Tool (JCT) is a free, web-based service that lets an author check, in a single query, whether a chosen journal offers a compliant Open Access route under a specific funder’s Plan S-aligned policy. It was commissioned by cOAlition S, the international consortium of research funders behind Plan S, and built and maintained by Cottage Labs following a public tender in 2020. The tool went live for open community testing in November 2020 and has run continuously since.

    Unlike a generic journal-finder that matches a manuscript abstract to plausible venues, the JCT answers a narrower and more consequential question: given this journal, this funder and (optionally) this institution, does a compliant publishing route exist right now? That distinction matters because Plan S compliance is contractual — getting it wrong can put grant funding at risk.

    How to Use the Journal Checker Tool: A Step-by-Step Walkthrough

    The JCT’s compliance algorithm takes three inputs, only one of which is strictly required:

    • Journal (required) — identified by its ISSN; the search box also accepts journal titles and resolves them to an ISSN internally.
    • Funder (optional) — matched against a Crossref funder ID; omitting it still returns routes that do not depend on funder policy.
    • Institution (optional) — matched against a ROR (Research Organization Registry) identifier, used to surface institution-specific transformative agreements.

    In practice, the walkthrough looks like this:

    1. Go to journalcheckertool.org and enter the journal name or ISSN in the search field.
    2. Select the funder from the dropdown (only cOAlition S member funders are listed).
    3. Select the institution, or tick “No affiliation” if it does not appear or is not relevant.
    4. Run the check. The tool returns one of three outcomes for each applicable route: Compliant, Non-Compliant, or Unknown (insufficient data), each with a short audit trail explaining the decision.
    5. If more than one route is compliant, compare them — self-archiving is usually cost-free, while gold and transformative routes may carry an article processing charge (APC) or be covered by an institutional agreement.

    What happens if my funder is not listed in the Journal Checker Tool?

    If a funder does not appear in the tool’s dropdown, it is not a cOAlition S member and Plan S compliance rules do not apply to that grant. Authors should confirm current membership on cOAlition S’s published funder list before assuming no obligation exists for that award.

    What does a “Rights Retention” result mean?

    A Rights Retention result shows the funder has adopted the Plan S Rights Retention Strategy, so every journal has a compliance route: authors can self-archive the accepted manuscript under a CC BY licence, provided the mandated rights-retention statement is included in the submitted paper.

    Is the Transformative Journals route still checked by the tool?

    The tool’s TJ-Check algorithm still runs internally, but cOAlition S financial support for Transformative Journals ceased on 31 December 2024, following a January 2023 announcement that ended new applications. Authors and institutions should treat any TJ-based compliance result as historical rather than as current funding policy going forward.

    Can I check compliance without knowing my institution?

    Yes. If an institution is not listed, authors can tick the “No affiliation” checkbox and run the check on funder and journal alone, or search using the organisation’s ROR identifier, which the tool accepts directly in place of a full name match, avoiding acronym confusion.

    The Compliance Routes the JCT Checks

    The JCT’s back end runs a separate check for each of four defined routes to Plan S compliance. Not every route is available for every journal-funder-institution combination, and one route — Transformative Journals — is now effectively legacy.

    Route What it means Current status in the JCT
    Full/Gold Open Access Journal publishes all content OA immediately under a compliant licence (typically CC BY), often via an APC. Actively checked; primary route for fully OA journals listed in DOAJ.
    Self-Archiving (Green) Author deposits the accepted manuscript in a repository with no embargo, typically supported by the Rights Retention Strategy. Actively checked; available even when no other route applies, if the funder has adopted Rights Retention.
    Transformative Agreements (TA) Institution or consortium holds a “read and publish” deal, registered in the ESAC Registry, that converts subscription spend into OA publishing credits. Actively checked against the ESAC Registry; agreements are removed three months after they expire unless renewed.
    Transformative Journals (TJ) Hybrid/subscription journal previously committed to gradually increasing its OA share under a time-limited scheme. Algorithm still runs, but cOAlition S financial support and new TJ applications ended 31 December 2024.

    Where more than one route returns “Compliant,” the JCT does not rank them — it presents all valid options and leaves the choice to the author, since cost, speed and institutional agreements will differ.

    Where the Tool’s Compliance Data Comes From

    The JCT does not hold opinions of its own; it aggregates and caches data from several external, authoritative registries and refreshes them on a schedule:

    • DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) — the curated list used to identify fully Open Access journals and their licensing terms.
    • Crossref — supplies journal and funder metadata, including the Crossref Funder IDs used to match grants to policies.
    • ESAC Registry — the authoritative source for transformative agreements, including their start and expiry dates.
    • Journal Comparison Service (JCS) — a lesser-known component through which publishers voluntarily share journal-level price and service data; the list of participating publishers and covered years is published as an open CSV, even though the underlying price data itself sits behind a JCS account.
    • Shareyourpaper.org permissions data — informs self-archiving embargo and licence terms for the Green route.

    Because compliance results are only as good as the underlying registries, cOAlition S actively asks publishers to keep their DOAJ listings, ESAC agreements and JCS submissions current — an accuracy dependency that is easy to overlook when treating the JCT purely as a black-box checker.

    What This Means for Authors, Institutions and Publishers

    For authors, the practical takeaway is to run the check before submission, not after acceptance — a journal that looked compliant a year ago may have lost an expired transformative agreement, and a TJ-based result from 2024 no longer reflects live funder policy. The tool’s open, documented API (github.com/CottageLabs/jct) also means library systems, submission platforms and reference managers can embed live compliance checks rather than linking out.

    For research administration teams, the JCT’s audit trail is the useful artefact: it gives a defensible, timestamped record of why a route was judged compliant, which is valuable when reporting to funders or resolving a post-publication dispute.

    For publishers, the tool is a reminder that Plan S compliance is now infrastructure-dependent: a journal’s real-world eligibility rests on whether its DOAJ entry, ESAC agreement and JCS submission are current, not on the publisher’s own marketing claims of “Plan S compliant” status.

    The Outlook: JCT After the Plan S Review

    cOAlition S ran a formal review of Plan S’s requirements, effects and impact through 2024, alongside the scheduled wind-down of Transformative Agreement and Transformative Journal financial support at year end. That review is reshaping which routes funders will continue to recognise, and the JCT’s route-by-route architecture means it can retire or add compliance checks — as it did with TJ — without authors needing to learn a new interface. The practical implication is that the Journal Checker Tool, not any single funder policy page, remains the fastest way to get a current answer, and it is worth re-checking a journal even if it was confirmed compliant in a previous grant cycle.