The literature concerning open access policies can be categorised in five main groups: research on policy formulation; literature on open science policy; case studies on policy implementation; discussion of the merits of open access policies; and general relevant open access literature. The reference list of literature is included in the Further reading section. As a general observation, dedicated research on open access policies has been surprisingly scarce. Below is a brief overview of literature in two categories:
1. Reflections and research on open access policy formulation
There is a substantial body of literature, nearly half of all open access policy-related literature found, which dealt with reflections or research on the formulation of open access policies, but only a handful focusing on open access book policies specifically. Among this literature one could particularly highlight a key report from the EU-funded PASTEUR4OA project (Swan, Gargouri, Hunt et al., 2015), which provides an analysis of hundreds of open access policies for open access journal articles, documenting criteria around policy alignment and how these connect to different degrees of strictness of mandates. Another example is Suber & Schieber (2020) in which the authors have composed a guide titled “Good practices for university open-access policies” as part of the Harvard Open Access Project. The guide contains recommendations on copyright, waivers, time of deposit, wording to avoid and wording to use. A third example is “Free for all, or free-for-all?: A content analysis of Australian university open access policies” by Wakeling, Kingsley, Jamali et al. (2022) in which the authors explore the alignment of open access policies among Australian universities. Of 42 universities, 20 had a formal open access policy on their website. The study included an investigation into some open access policy elements and compared them across the policies, finding that none of the studied open access policies mentioned monitoring of compliance, and only three specified consequences for failure to comply. Significant variation was found across open access policies (e.g. definitions of open access, intent of policies, deposit timing, paying for publication). Only 13 out of 20 open access policies specified a deadline for deposit of papers into a repository.
The few items of literature on open access policies for academic books that could be found (3 items) reflect the complex landscape of scholarly publishing and the unique challenges faced in transitioning longform content to open access models. Two texts in this category, Adema (2019) and Fathallah (2022), provide comprehensive insights into the development, implementation, and implications of open access book policies. Both authors agree that policy intervention is necessary and welcome, but stress the importance of carefully crafted policies that address the unique challenges of open access books. They highlight the need for sustainable funding models, advocating for the exploration of alternatives to BPCs, such as consortial funding models. Moreover, both texts emphasise the crucial role of robust technical infrastructure for open access book publishing, dissemination and discoverability.
The “policy effectiveness” group of literature (10 items) was found to be defined by a focus on the effectiveness and implementation of open access policies in academic and research settings. The studies employ various methodologies, including bibliometric analyses, surveys, interviews and large-scale data analyses, to examine compliance rates, factors influencing policy effectiveness and the impact of open access mandates. While there is a global perspective (Huang et al., 2020), there is a notable emphasis on country-level policies (DeSanto, 2023; Herrmannova et al., 2019; Lovett et al., 2017). The literature covers recent years, primarily the 2010s and early 2020s, and involves multiple stakeholders such as researchers, librarians, funders and policymakers. Many studies indicate avenues for improving open access policy effectiveness, including simplifying deposit processes, drafting clear policies, establishing effective infrastructure, enhancing communication and implementing stricter compliance measures. Overall, this collection provides a comprehensive overview of the current state, challenges and potential improvements in open access policy implementation across various academic contexts.
2. OA policy implementation/case studies
In the literature, a strand that has been focusing on documenting open access policy development or implementation efforts was identified, sometimes framed as case studies. Most of these have been on the institutional level (14 items), while some open access policy implementations on the national level (4 items) have been observed.
Examples of some early open access policy case studies at the institutional level are Cochrane & Callan (2007), who followed up on the impact of a self-archiving mandate at Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, and Armbruster (2011) and Emmett & Peterson (2010) who detailed the process behind the University of Kansas open access policy. This type of literature has been valuable for sharing experiences and knowledge about tensions in institutional politics that relate to open access policy implementation, experimenting with different ways to promote adoption and providing tangible evidence for what the impact of different types of policies have had in different environments.
While there is a wealth of literature that presents open access development and uptake metrics on the country level, the four national-level items that are included here contain a connection between such metrics and the national open access policy context. In their research article “Strategies for success: Open access policies at North American educational institutions,” Fruin & Sutton (2016) conducted a survey covering 51 institutions in which open access policy contents were explored together with promotion mechanisms, as well as faculty concerns and related mitigation measures. Other national-level studies include Turcan & Cujba (2018) for Moldova, Wenaas & Gulbrandsen (2022) for Norway, and Hadad, Aharony & Raban (2023) for Israel.