CASRAI Dictionary

Tag: Open Access Compliance

  • 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.

  • RCUK Open Access Report: What Changed Under UKRI

    The RCUK open access report was the annual institutional compliance return that UK universities filed to Research Councils UK from 2013, tracking block-grant spend and Gold/Green compliance rates. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) absorbed this reporting duty on its formation in 2018 and then retired the manual return altogether under its harmonised 2022 open access policy.

    The Research Councils UK (RCUK) open access policy is the funder mandate, introduced on 1 April 2013, that required peer-reviewed outputs acknowledging Research Council funding to be made freely accessible via a Gold or Green route.

    What was the RCUK open access report?

    The RCUK open access report was an institution-level compliance return, typically prepared as a spreadsheet, that recorded how each university’s RCUK block grant had been spent and what proportion of eligible outputs met the policy’s Gold or Green requirements. Research organisations receiving RCUK open access block grants were expected to submit these figures annually to the relevant research council.

    Under the RCUK policy, Gold open access — the publisher making the final Version of Record free on publication, usually funded by an Article Processing Charge (APC) — was the preferred route, supported by direct block-grant payments to institutions. Green open access, depositing the Author’s Accepted Manuscript in a repository, was permitted subject to an embargo of up to six months for STEM subjects and twelve months for arts, humanities and social sciences. Universities such as Imperial College London, the University of Edinburgh and the University of Southampton published detailed versions of their own compliance reports, illustrating how administratively heavy the annual return had become by the mid-2010s.

    Why UKRI absorbed RCUK’s reporting regime

    UKRI was formed on 1 April 2018 under the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, bringing together the seven former Research Councils, Innovate UK and Research England into a single funding body. This merger created both the opportunity and the obligation to harmonise the fragmented council-by-council open access reporting that RCUK had left behind.

    UKRI subsequently ran a formal open access policy review, consulting institutions, publishers and researchers, with the explicit goal of replacing seven overlapping council policies — and their separate compliance paperwork — with a single UKRI-wide mandate. UKRI is also a member of cOAlition S, the international funder consortium behind Plan S, which launched in 2018 and became fully operative for its members on 1 January 2021. Plan S’s ten principles, including immediate open access with no embargo and a preference for CC BY licensing, became the template UKRI built its new policy around, rather than a patchwork of council-specific embargo periods.

    What changed under the 2022 UKRI open access policy

    The new UKRI open access policy took effect on 1 April 2022 for peer-reviewed research articles and conference papers with an ISSN, and on 1 January 2024 for monographs, book chapters and edited collections. It requires immediate open access with no embargo permitted, via either Gold (Version of Record free on the publisher’s site) or Green (Author’s Accepted Manuscript in a repository, released immediately under a CC BY licence through UKRI’s Rights Retention Strategy).

    The most consequential change for research administrators is what UKRI removed, not just what it added: the annual institutional compliance spreadsheet that defined the RCUK era is gone. UKRI monitors compliance through existing publication metadata — repository records, CrossRef and publisher data — rather than requiring institutions to submit a standalone report. UKRI has also committed a dedicated fund of £3.5 million per year to support open access costs for long-form outputs, separate from the block-grant model that funded RCUK-era Gold APCs.

    • No embargo permitted on journal articles or conference papers from 1 April 2022
    • CC BY is the default licence, with CC BY-ND permitted only by exception
    • Monographs, book chapters and edited collections join the policy from 1 January 2024
    • Compliance monitoring shifts from submitted spreadsheets to existing metadata sources

    RCUK vs UKRI open access reporting compared

    The table below sets out the practical differences institutions need to reconcile when auditing historical RCUK-funded outputs against current UKRI-funded ones.

    Aspect RCUK policy (2013–2022) UKRI policy (from 2022/2024)
    Reporting mechanism Annual institutional compliance spreadsheet submitted per council Monitoring via existing publication metadata; no standalone institutional report
    Governing body Seven separate Research Councils Single UKRI-wide policy
    Green embargo Up to 6 months (STEM) / 12 months (AHSS) No embargo permitted
    Default licence Not standardised across councils CC BY, via the Rights Retention Strategy
    Scope Peer-reviewed articles and conference papers Adds monographs, book chapters, edited collections from 2024
    Funding model Block grants to institutions Block grants plus a dedicated £3.5m/year long-form fund

    Frequently asked questions

    What is an open access report?

    An open access report is a compliance return that documents whether research outputs funded by a body such as RCUK or UKRI meet that funder’s open access requirements. Under RCUK it was an institution-submitted spreadsheet tracking block-grant spend; under UKRI, compliance is now inferred from publication metadata rather than a submitted document.

    What is the RCUK policy on open access and supporting guidance?

    The RCUK policy on open access, introduced 1 April 2013, required peer-reviewed papers acknowledging Research Council funding to be made freely available through Gold or Green routes, supported by block-grant guidance issued to research organisations on eligible costs and embargo limits.

    What was the UKRI open access review?

    The UKRI open access review was a formal consultation process examining UKRI’s inherited RCUK-era policies to design a single, harmonised mandate. It engaged institutions, publishers and researchers, and its outcome was the 2022 UKRI open access policy that superseded all seven prior council-specific arrangements.

    What are open access requirements under UKRI?

    Current UKRI open access requirements mandate immediate access with no embargo for journal articles funded from 1 April 2022, a CC BY licence by default, and a Data Access Statement in every covered article, whether or not underlying data exists.

    What this means for institutions filing compliance today

    Research offices auditing historical outputs still need to apply RCUK-era rules — embargo periods, council-specific block-grant terms — to anything published before 1 April 2022, while applying the no-embargo UKRI standard to everything after. This dual-track reality means institutional repositories and current research information systems (CRIS) should retain the ability to flag which regime governed a given output, since RCUK-era Green deposits legitimately carried embargoes that would now be non-compliant under UKRI rules.

    Because UKRI no longer requires a submitted spreadsheet, the burden has shifted from periodic reporting to continuous metadata hygiene: accurate funder acknowledgement, licence tagging and repository deposit timing now do the compliance work that the annual RCUK report used to do. Institutions should also note that the separate REF 2021 open access policy, which required AAM deposit within three months of acceptance, ran on its own track alongside RCUK and is expected to align more closely with UKRI’s approach under the successor REF exercise.

    Conclusion: where UK open access reporting goes next

    The transition from RCUK to UKRI did not add a new reporting layer — it removed one. The annual compliance spreadsheet that defined a decade of RCUK administration has been replaced by metadata-driven monitoring under a single UKRI policy shaped by cOAlition S’s Plan S principles. For institutions, the practical task now is less about filing a report and more about ensuring the underlying publication record is accurate enough that UKRI’s monitoring can find compliance without being told about it.

    For research administrators managing legacy and current outputs side by side, understanding which policy era governs a given publication remains essential groundwork before any funder audit.

  • Read and Publish Agreements: Meeting Plan S

    A read and publish agreement is a single institutional contract that bundles a library’s journal-subscription payments with its authors’ open-access publishing fees, so researchers publish open access without paying an individual Article Processing Charge (APC). It is one of several mechanisms institutions use to satisfy funder open-access mandates such as Plan S, alongside publish-and-read deals, transformative journals, and APC waivers.

    A read and publish agreement is defined by having two payment components in one contract: a fee for reading (subscription access) and a fee for publishing (open-access output) from the same institution to the same publisher.

    What is a read and publish agreement?

    A read and publish (RAP) agreement is a contract between a library or consortium and a publisher that consolidates two previously separate payment streams — subscription access and per-article open-access fees — into one negotiated sum. Corresponding authors affiliated with the subscribing institution can then publish open access in the publisher’s eligible journals without submitting an individual APC invoice.

    RAP contracts emerged from the broader category of transformative agreements: deals designed to shift a publisher’s revenue away from subscription reading and towards open-access publishing over a defined term. The Scholarly Kitchen’s 2019 primer on transformative agreements, still the reference framework cited across library literature, formalised the RAP/PAR distinction that libraries and publishers use today.

    • Eligibility is normally restricted to the corresponding author at a subscribing institution.
    • Coverage typically spans a publisher’s hybrid and fully open-access journal portfolio, though scope varies by contract.
    • Most agreements carry an annual article quota or budget cap; once exhausted, further OA publishing may require a separate APC or wait until the next contract year.

    How the model satisfies Plan S without per-article APCs

    Plan S, the policy coordinated by the funder consortium cOAlition S, requires that research outputs from participating funders be made immediately open access, either in a fully OA journal or platform, or via a compliant route within a subscription journal. A read and publish agreement satisfies this by making every eligible article OA on publication as a contractual default, removing the author’s need to source separate APC funding.

    Because the institution has already paid for publishing rights as part of the bundled fee, the author’s compliance obligation is met automatically at acceptance, provided the article falls within the agreement’s scope and quota. This is the core mechanic that distinguishes RAP deals from a standard hybrid-journal APC waiver, which still requires a case-by-case funding decision.

    cOAlition S’s Guidance on the Implementation of Plan S treats transformative agreements as a transitional compliance route, not a permanent end state. Under that guidance, newly negotiated transformative contracts concluded from 2020 were capped at a maximum three-year term and required a defined scenario for full conversion to open access once the contract expired — meaning agreements negotiated in this window needed a stated end date for reliance on the subscription-plus-publishing model, generally landing around 2024.

    Read-and-publish vs publish-and-read vs transformative journals

    Institutions encounter several related mechanisms that all aim at Plan S compliance but differ in who pays, for what, and how the cost falls across a consortium.

    Mechanism Payment structure Who bears cost in a consortium Typical compliance route
    Read-and-publish (RAP) Reading fee + publishing fee, bundled All member libraries share read-access cost Transformative agreement
    Publish-and-read (PAR) Publishing fee only; reading included Cost falls mainly on institutions whose authors publish Transformative agreement
    Transformative journal Per-article APC, but journal commits to OA growth targets Individual author/funder pays per article Direct Plan S-compliant route (time-limited by cOAlition S)
    APC waiver No payment; fee reduced or removed case-by-case Publisher absorbs cost, often for LMIC authors Discretionary, publisher- or policy-specific

    The Scholarly Kitchen’s framework draws the RAP/PAR line precisely: a Read-and-Publish agreement charges the publisher for both reading and publishing in one contract, while a Publish-and-Read agreement charges only for publishing, with reading access included at no further cost. Germany’s DEAL consortium agreement with Wiley illustrates the PAR variant concretely: the negotiated Publish&Read fee for hybrid open-access articles was set at €2,750 per article, fixed for the three-year term of the contract, with legacy subscription payments folded into that single per-article rate.

    Transformative journals are a distinct, narrower mechanism: individual hybrid journals commit to year-on-year OA growth targets in exchange for continued Plan S eligibility, but authors (or their funders) still pay a per-article APC — the mechanism a general RAP deal is specifically designed to avoid.

    Cost-recovery mechanics for libraries

    Libraries typically negotiate RAP and PAR deals with a cost-neutrality target: the new bundled fee should approximate prior subscription spend, redirected rather than added to. In practice, outcomes vary. Some negotiated agreements land close to cost-neutral; others increase total spend once publishing volume is factored in, particularly where no article-volume cap or price ceiling is agreed.

    The ESAC Initiative (Efficiency and Standards for Article Charges), coordinated by the Max Planck Digital Library, maintains a public registry of signed transformative agreements and a set of negotiation principles — cost transparency, author copyright retention (typically via a CC BY licence), and a defined transition pathway — that most library consortia now use as a negotiating baseline. In the UK, Jisc Collections’ Requirements for Transformative Open Access Agreements sets equivalent expectations for higher-education institutions negotiating on a national basis.

    Article Processing Charges outside a RAP contract remain the counterfactual libraries are trying to avoid. Analyses of Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)-listed gold OA titles have found APCs ranging from roughly $500 to $6,000, with an average close to $2,000 per article — a cost that scales directly with an institution’s publication volume when paid individually rather than bundled.

    • Cambridge University Press states its global transformative agreements let authors at over 1,000 institutions publish OA at no direct cost to the author.
    • UK consortium deals are negotiated centrally by Jisc; Australian and New Zealand deals are negotiated by the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL).
    • Consortium-level PAR deals shift more of the cost burden onto institutions with higher publishing output, unlike RAP deals where read-access cost is shared more evenly.

    Frequently asked questions

    What is a read and publish agreement?

    A read and publish agreement is a contract in which a publisher receives a single bundled payment from a library or consortium covering both subscription reading access and open-access publishing fees for the institution’s corresponding authors. It replaces individual APC invoicing with one negotiated, institution-level cost.

    What is the meaning of “read and publish” versus “publish and read”?

    “Read and publish” means the publisher is paid separately for reading and publishing within one contract, whereas “publish and read” (PAR) means the publisher is paid only for publishing, with reading access supplied at no additional cost. The distinction affects how cost is apportioned across a library consortium.

    How much does the average APC cost?

    Gold open-access APCs typically range from around $500 to $6,000 per article, with studies of DOAJ-listed journals putting the average close to $2,000. A read and publish agreement absorbs this variable, per-article cost into one predictable annual institutional fee.

    Implications and outlook

    For research administrators, RAP and PAR agreements simplify Plan S compliance tracking: instead of monitoring individual APC waiver requests, the compliance question becomes whether a given journal and author fall within an already-signed contract’s scope and remaining quota. This shifts administrative effort from transaction-level approval to portfolio-level negotiation and monitoring.

    cOAlition S has consistently framed transformative agreements as transitional rather than terminal, with time-limited terms built into its Plan S guidance. Institutions relying on RAP or PAR deals should treat quota caps, contract renewal dates, and each publisher’s stated conversion pathway to full open access as the operational details that determine whether Plan S compliance holds for the full contract term — not an assumption that any signed agreement guarantees indefinite coverage.

    Research administrators evaluating a publisher’s OA agreement should check it against the institution’s affiliated research administration policy and confirm how corresponding-author eligibility is determined, since eligibility criteria are central to whether an individual article is actually covered — a determination closely tied to authorship and corresponding-author status on the submitted manuscript.

  • 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.

  • Compliance Monitoring under National Funding Mandates: A Roadmap for Universities

    Introduction to Funder Compliance in Scholarly Spaces

    As national funding bodies globally (such as the US federal agencies under the Nelson Memo and European funders under Plan S) enforce strict open-access and data-sharing mandates, university research administration offices must build robust systems for compliance monitoring.

    The Administrative Challenge of Mandate Proliferation

    Managing compliance with dozens of distinct funder mandates is highly complex. Each funding body has specific rules regarding accepted repository tiers, permissible Creative Commons license types, metadata standards, and embargo durations. Manual audit processes are expensive, slow, and prone to error, leaving universities vulnerable to funding sanctions.

    Automating Compliance Monitoring using CRIS and Repository APIs

    To scale compliance monitoring, universities must leverage automated workflows. By integrating institutional CRIS networks with external APIs (like Crossref, DataCite, and Sherpa Romeo), compliance officers can automate: 1. Detecting new publications funded by specific grants. 2. Auditing manuscript deposit files for correct licenses. 3. Flagging expired embargoes.

    Developing a Centralized Institutional Compliance Dashboard

    A centralized, web-based compliance dashboard provides research administrators and PIs with real-time insight into the status of active research. This dashboard tracks publication deposits, dataset links, and open-licensing statuses, simplifying reporting, alerts authors to pending deadlines, and generates audit reports for funding agencies.

    Key Data and Comparative Metrics

    Compliance Metric Funder Mandate Requirement Automated Monitoring Control
    Open Access License Must be released under open CC-BY or public domain licenses. API audit of metadata deposits, flagging incompatible licenses.
    Repository Deposit Must be uploaded to a trusted, permanent open repository. Automated verification of DOI-to-Repository links via DataCite API.
    Embargo Period Must have zero embargo duration (e.g., Nelson Memo guidelines). Check repository metadata to ensure immediate release of accepted manuscripts.

    Actionable Checklist for Funder Compliance

    • Establish a multidisciplinary compliance working group (Library, Research Office, IT).: Establish a multidisciplinary compliance working group (Library, Research Office, IT).
    • Integrate the university CRIS database with the Crossref REST API.: Integrate the university CRIS database with the Crossref REST API.
    • Configure repository metadata schemas to support automated compliance reporting.: Configure repository metadata schemas to support automated compliance reporting.
    • Provide researchers with automated, real-time compliance dashboards.: Provide researchers with automated, real-time compliance dashboards.
    • Conduct biannual internal compliance reviews to identify and mitigate risks.: Conduct biannual internal compliance reviews to identify and mitigate risks.