Publisher embargoes and institutional repositories: a case study of journal articles subject to an Australian funder mandate

Abstract

Introduction. Despite funder policies recognising the repository route as critical to achieving open access compliance, most accepted manuscripts in repositories have embargoes on access. This paper explored the extent to which embargoes hinder open access for grant recipients.

Method. The study applied bibliometric research methods to analyse 7,562 journal articles, published in 2019 and funded by Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council. The primary data sources included Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Sherpa Romeo.

Analysis. Analysis was performed for the embargo periods of accepted manuscripts of non-open access articles (43.76%, n = 3,309) in institutional repositories and the effects of embargoes on compliance with funder policies.

Results. Three-quarters of non-open access articles had embargo periods of twelve months. However, 30.94% of total articles remained publicly inaccessible, with accepted manuscripts in institutional repositories comprising only 9.65%.

Conclusions. Publishers’ embargo periods complicate the cost-free solution of depositing accepted manuscripts in institutional repositories. The promotion of zero-embargoed journals and the adoption of zero-embargoes for funded articles in institutional repositories through funder-publisher agreements would achieve higher open access levels and compliance with the Council’s Policy.