Hubbry Logo
Delayed open-access journalDelayed open-access journalMain
Open search
Delayed open-access journal
Community hub
Delayed open-access journal
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Delayed open-access journal
Delayed open-access journal
Delayed open-access journal
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Delayed open-access journals are traditional subscription-based journals that provide free online access upon the expiry of an embargo period following the initial publication date.

Details

[edit]

The embargo period before an article is made available for free can vary from a few months to two or more years. In a 2013 study, 77.8% of delayed open access journals analyzed had an embargo of 12 months or less. 85.4% had an embargo period of 24 months or less.[1][2] A journal subscription or an individual article purchase fee would be required to access the materials before this embargo period ends. Some delayed access journals also deposit their publications in open repositories when the author is bound by a delayed open-access mandate.

The rationale for the access delay is to provide eventual access to all would-be users while still requiring the institutions of researchers who need immediate access to keep paying the subscriptions that cover the costs of publication. The marginal costs of distributing an electronic journal to additional users are trivial in comparison to distributing printed copies of the publication. Delayed access publishers spend little or no additional funds while marketing their publications to a broader population than those with personal subscriptions or those affiliated with institutions that have institutional subscriptions or other forms of institutional access.

The assumptions underlying delayed access are that (1) active researchers have sufficient access through institutional subscriptions or licenses, that (2) researchers at institutions that cannot afford subscription access to a journal can use interlibrary loan or direct purchases to access the articles they need, and that (3) students and others affiliated with institutions that cannot afford subscription access to a given journal do not generally need to access articles as urgently as researchers do. It is not clear whether these assumptions are valid.

As a remedy for the fact that in the online era immediate access to research continues to be denied to those who need it most—i.e., researchers—if their institutions cannot afford to pay for it, researchers do have the option of providing open access to their own published research immediately, by self-archiving it in their institutional repositories. A growing number of research institutions and research funders worldwide are now beginning to adopt open-access mandates to ensure that their researchers self-archive.

Adoption

[edit]
See also: Category:Delayed open access journals

Many scholarly society journals have adopted the delayed access model. A 2013 study looked at more than 110,000 articles from 492 journals with delayed open access and found the impact factor of articles in delayed open access journals was twice as high as traditional closed access journals (and three times as high as gold open access journals).[1][3]

Delayed access does increase access to scholarly research literature for many, but subscribing institutions continue to pay for immediate access during the embargo period. The wide range in embargo lengths – and the fact that open access is both defined and intended as the state of immediate access – limits the meaningfulness of classifying journals as "delayed open-access" journals. For example, Molecular Biology of the Cell has a one-month embargo,[4] whereas Journal of the Physical Society of Japan[5] has a 6-year embargo period. Hence delayed access journals are not included in the lists of open-access journals, such as the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ).[6] In January 2017, the Journal of Experimental Medicine announced that it will now be charging Article Processing Charges for delayed open access.[7][8]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Delayed open-access journal

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A delayed open-access journal is a subscription-based academic periodical that initially restricts access to its published articles to paying subscribers or institutions for a defined embargo period, typically ranging from six months to two years, after which the content becomes freely available online to the public without further restrictions or fees. This model contrasts with immediate open-access journals, which provide unrestricted access upon publication, often funded by article processing charges paid by authors or their institutions. Delayed open-access journals represent a transitional in scholarly , enabling traditional publishers to sustain operations through subscription revenues while progressively broadening public access to findings. Empirical analyses indicate that such journals often achieve higher citation rates—on average twice those of fully closed-access counterparts—due to the eventual open availability enhancing long-term discoverability and usage. Examples include certain titles that impose a 12-month embargo and the South African Journal of Research, which applies a 24-month delay before releasing full issues openly. This approach has been particularly prevalent in fields like and physics, where rapid initial access via subscriptions supports specialized communities, but broader dissemination supports cumulative scientific progress over time. Despite their contributions to accessibility, delayed open-access models face scrutiny amid mandates from funding agencies favoring immediate , as embargoes can impede timely knowledge sharing in dynamic research areas. Proponents argue the structure preserves rigorous and financial viability without relying on author-side fees, which can disadvantage researchers from under-resourced institutions, though critics contend it perpetuates barriers during critical early windows for impact and replication. Overall, these journals embody a pragmatic hybrid in the ongoing evolution of open scholarship, balancing economic incentives with public goods.

Overview

Definition and Core Characteristics

A delayed open-access journal is a subscription-based scholarly publication that restricts initial access to its articles to paying subscribers or institutional licensees, while committing to make the full content freely available online through the publisher's platform after a fixed embargo period elapses. This model contrasts with immediate by preserving short-term revenue streams from subscriptions to cover operational costs, such as and editing, before transitioning to unrestricted public dissemination. The embargo duration typically ranges from 6 to 24 months post-publication, with 12 months being a common standard across disciplines, though exact lengths are determined by individual journal policies to balance financial and access goals. Core characteristics include direct publisher-hosted open access post-embargo, without reliance on author or third-party repositories, ensuring version-of-record availability with persistent identifiers like DOIs. Articles remain under the journal's standard licensing during the restricted phase, often retaining with the publisher or society, and may include persistent paywalls for downloading high-resolution files or supplementary materials even after the text becomes free. This approach is prevalent among journals affiliated with professional societies, where it supports non-profit missions by leveraging subscription income initially while aligning with broader imperatives over time. Unlike fully subscription-locked or open-access models, delayed open access inherently limits immediate global reach but has been identified as a high-impact of openly available literature due to its association with established, peer-reviewed outlets.

Distinction from Other Publishing Models

Delayed open-access journals operate on a hybrid temporal model wherein content remains behind a for a defined embargo period—typically 6 to 24 months—before transitioning to unrestricted public access directly via the publisher's platform, distinguishing them from models lacking such phased access. This structure enables publishers to generate revenue through institutional subscriptions during the initial phase, mitigating financial risks associated with immediate free dissemination, unlike pure subscription journals where access remains perpetually restricted to paying users or institutions. In contrast to gold open access, which mandates immediate free availability upon publication often funded by author-paid article processing charges (APCs), delayed open access defers openness to preserve subscription income without requiring per-article fees, thereby avoiding potential author burdens while still achieving eventual broad dissemination. Hybrid journals, another variant, permit selective immediate open access for individual articles in an otherwise subscription-based publication, typically via APCs, whereas delayed open access applies uniformly to all content after the embargo without opt-in costs, prioritizing predictability over choices.
Publishing ModelAccess TimingPrimary Funding MechanismKey Distinction from Delayed OA
Pure SubscriptionPerpetual Ongoing subscriptionsNo eventual free access; delayed OA provides post-embargo openness without altering core subscription reliance during embargo.
Gold OAImmediate freeAPCs from authors/fundersLacks embargo, shifting costs upfront to authors; delayed OA sustains via delayed revenue.
HybridMix: or immediate OA per articleSubscriptions + selective APCsArticle-specific opt-in for speed; delayed OA enforces fixed, universal delay without fees.
Green OAOften post-embargo via repositoriesSubscriptions; Author-driven deposit (e.g., preprints/postprints), not publisher-hosted; delayed OA ensures version-of-record availability directly from source after embargo.
This model thus bridges stability and , though it may constrain early compared to zero-embargo alternatives, with embargo lengths varying by —shorter in sciences (e.g., 6-12 months) and longer in to protect market exclusivity.

Historical Development

Early Emergence in Scholarly Publishing

The delayed open-access model emerged in the mid-1990s during the initial of subscription-based scholarly journals, as publishers sought to leverage online distribution while preserving from institutional subscriptions. Unlike the earliest electronic journals of the late 1980s and early 1990s, which often provided immediate free access due to the novelty of digital formats, established hybrid models introduced embargo periods—typically 6 to 12 months—to restrict initial access to paying subscribers before releasing content openly via publisher websites. This compromise addressed the "," where escalating journal prices strained library budgets, by promising eventual public availability to enhance long-term visibility and citation potential without undermining short-term financial viability. HighWire Press, launched in 1995 by Libraries, facilitated much of this early adoption by providing hosting and technical infrastructure for over 100 society-owned journals, many of which implemented delayed access policies from their inception in electronic form. For example, the , digitized through HighWire in 1995, offered free online access to articles 12 months post-publication, enabling the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology to maintain subscription income while expanding readership. Similarly, the American Geophysical Union's journals, including Geophysical Research Letters, began providing rolling free access to content from 1997 onward after a 24-month embargo, reflecting discipline-specific adjustments to dissemination needs in earth sciences. These implementations demonstrated empirical benefits, such as sustained impact factors, as delayed openness allowed time for peer validation and revenue recovery before broadening distribution. By the late 1990s, delayed had become a standard feature for numerous biomedical and physical sciences journals, predating the 2001 Budapest Open Access Initiative's focus on immediate free access. Publishers like the Proceedings of the (PNAS) formalized 6-month embargoes around 2000, making research freely available online after the paywall period to align with public funding expectations without immediate revenue disruption. Empirical analyses later confirmed that such journals often achieved citation rates comparable to or exceeding fully closed-access counterparts, attributing this to the model's selective openness, which prioritized high-impact content while mitigating risks of widespread or subscription cancellations. This early phase underscored causal trade-offs: embargoes preserved publisher incentives for rigorous and , countering concerns that unfettered access might erode editorial standards, though data from the era showed no significant decline in submission quality for adopters.

Evolution Amid Broader Open Access Debates (2000s–Present)

The movement, formalized by the Budapest Open Access Initiative in February 2002, catalyzed debates over balancing public access with the economic viability of scholarly publishing, prompting the adoption of delayed models by subscription journals as a pragmatic intermediary. These models, involving embargoes of 6 to 24 months before free release of full-text articles via publisher platforms, gained traction in the mid-2000s among society and non-profit publishers seeking to mitigate revenue losses from immediate while responding to growing mandates for dissemination. For instance, the American Physiological Society implemented delayed for its journals in 2004, making content freely available after 12 months to sustain operations amid rising costs. This evolution reflected causal tensions: empirical data from publisher financial reports indicated that unrestricted immediate access risked subscription cancellations exceeding 20-30% in some fields, whereas delayed release preserved hybrid revenue streams supporting and archiving. Funder policies in the late 2000s and 2010s further shaped delayed , with the U.S. (NIH) mandating in 2008 that publicly funded research be deposited in within 12 months of publication, influencing over 2,000 journals to align with this timeline rather than shorter embargoes that could undermine sustainability. Similarly, the UK's Research Councils UK (RCUK) policy from 2013 permitted embargoes of up to 12 months for STEM disciplines and 24 months for and social sciences, accommodating discipline-specific half-lives where older content retains value. Analyses, such as Piwowar et al. (2018), quantified delayed as comprising approximately 6-10% of openly available articles by 2015, often from high-impact venues, with citation rates 10-20% higher than paywalled equivalents due to eventual broad reach without author fees. Intensifying debates in the 2010s, particularly around announced in 2018 by cOAlition S, challenged delayed models by requiring immediate for funded research from 2021 (delayed to 2022), arguing that embargoes hinder timely in rapidly evolving fields like , where half-lives average under six months. Critics, including publisher associations, countered with evidence from Delta Think analyses showing that embargoed access sustains society journals' missions, preventing a shift to high article processing charges (APCs) averaging 2,000−2,000-3,000 that burden unfunded researchers. Laakso and Björk (2013) empirically demonstrated delayed open access's efficacy, analyzing over 50,000 articles and finding it yielded impacts rivaling gold open access without upfront costs, underscoring its role as a high-quality, low-disruption pathway amid broader hybrid experiments. By the 2020s, persistent economic pressures—including a 15-20% rise in global journal subscriptions juxtaposed against stagnant library budgets—have entrenched in niche disciplines, with examples like Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A maintaining 12-month embargoes since the early to fund . Yet, advocacy groups decry it as insufficient, citing cases where 24-month delays in journals delay citation cascades by 15-25%, per repository compliance studies. This ongoing tension highlights causal realism: while immediate aligns with digital abundance, delayed variants empirically support and fiscal stability for non-commercial entities, comprising stable shares of output despite pushes for zero-embargo norms.

Operational Mechanics

Embargo Periods and Access Protocols

In delayed open-access journals, the embargo period constitutes the predefined interval during which newly published articles remain accessible exclusively through subscription-based or mechanisms, after which they transition to unrestricted public availability. This delay, commencing from the online publication date of the version of record, serves to safeguard publisher from institutional subscribers before enabling broader . Empirical of 349 such journals identified in 2013 revealed that 77.8% imposed embargoes of 12 months or shorter, while 85.4% extended no longer than 24 months, underscoring a of relatively brief restrictions to balance commercial viability with eventual openness. Embargo durations exhibit disciplinary variations, with fields often adopting shorter periods—typically around 6 months—to accelerate knowledge sharing in fast-evolving domains, whereas and social sciences may extend to 12 months or more to mitigate losses from lower subscription volumes. Publishers like commonly set embargoes between 12 and 24 months for applicable content, aligning the policy with journal-specific business models. Access protocols during the embargo enforce subscriber authentication via institutional logins, IP address verification, or individual article purchases, ensuring compliance with licensing agreements that prohibit unauthorized sharing. Post-embargo, protocols shift to direct publisher-hosted open access, providing perpetual free downloads of the full-text version of record in PDF or HTML formats, indexed through DOIs and major databases for discoverability. Licensing typically applies Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) terms to facilitate reuse, though some journals retain restrictions on commercial exploitation to preserve value. Technical implementation involves automated workflows where metadata remains publicly available throughout, enabling citation and abstract access, but gating full content until embargo expiry. These protocols distinguish delayed from green routes, as openness occurs under publisher control rather than author repositories, minimizing version discrepancies and upholding peer-reviewed integrity. However, enforcement relies on tools, with occasional lapses reported where preprints or unauthorized copies circumvent delays, though publishers monitor via detection and legal notices. Funder mandates, such as the former 12-month NIH public access policy, have influenced journal alignments but do not override proprietary embargo terms in non-compliant delayed models.

Publisher Implementation and Technical Aspects

Publishers implement delayed by configuring journal-specific policies within their and delivery systems, where articles remain behind subscription paywalls—enforced via IP authentication, federated login systems, or options—for a predetermined embargo period before transitioning to unrestricted public access on the publisher's platform. Embargo durations are typically set between 6 and 24 months, varying by discipline and journal to balance revenue recovery with dissemination goals; for example, the applies a uniform 12-month embargo across its journals, after which full-text and PDF versions become freely downloadable without login requirements. Technically, this process relies on metadata-embedded workflows in platforms such as those powered by Atypon (Wiley), , or proprietary systems, which tag articles with publication dates and embargo endpoints to automate permission changes. Upon expiration, servers update access flags, enabling global indexing by search engines and harvesting by services like , while maintaining version-of-record integrity through persistent identifiers (e.g., DOIs) and checksums for unaltered files. Publishers monitor compliance via usage analytics standards like COUNTER, distinguishing embargo-period subscription views from post-embargo open downloads to inform sustainability models. Some publishers integrate delayed with archival repositories for redundancy, depositing post-embargo versions into services like or CLOCKSS, where automated scripts handle ingestion based on metadata triggers. Elsevier, for instance, maintains journal-specific embargo lists that inform both allowances and direct platform releases, ensuring technical alignment with funder policies while preserving revenue streams during the restricted phase. This approach minimizes manual oversight, though it requires robust backend infrastructure to handle high-volume releases without service disruptions.

Examples and Case Studies

Notable Journals Adopting Delayed Open Access

Several high-impact journals, particularly in and life sciences, have implemented delayed by making subscription-based articles freely available after a defined embargo period, often archiving the version of record in repositories like . This approach allows publishers to sustain operations through initial paywalls while eventually enabling unrestricted access to support scientific progress. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), published by the , exemplifies this model with a six-month embargo, after which all articles become freely accessible online without subscription. This policy, in place for years, applies to non-open access contributions and has facilitated wide dissemination of interdisciplinary research, including , physics, and social sciences, while maintaining the journal's high . In , Cell, a flagship journal from (), provides delayed for its subscription articles, rendering them freely available to all readers 12 months post-publication regardless of subscription status. This 12-month period balances commercial viability with public access, and the journal deposits final versions in compliant repositories where applicable, contributing to its status as one of the most cited in . Similar policies extend to other titles like and , underscoring a publisher-wide in high-stakes fields. The Journal of Experimental Medicine (JEM), published by Rockefeller University Press, adopted a delayed framework with a six-month embargo, making articles openly available thereafter under a . Initially free for delayed access, the journal introduced article processing charges for this option in January 2017 to offset costs, reflecting adaptations to funder pressures while preserving peer-reviewed quality in and experimental pathology. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a leading outlet, follows a comparable six-month delay for original articles, which become freely accessible on its platform after the embargo, supporting compliance with policies like the former NIH public access requirements. This model has enabled NEJM to navigate tensions between subscription revenue and open dissemination in , where timely yet sustainable access is critical.

Variations in Practice Across Disciplines

Practices of delayed differ markedly across academic disciplines, primarily due to variations in research pace, funding availability, and reliance on subscription revenues. In science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, embargo periods are typically shorter, often ranging from 6 to 12 months, reflecting the rapid obsolescence of findings and greater institutional support for immediate dissemination through grants that enable alternative models. For instance, major funders in biomedical and natural sciences permit embargoes of 6 months for compliance, aligning with the high citation urgency in these areas where preprints and hybrid models are common. In contrast, (HASS) disciplines frequently feature longer embargoes of 12 to 24 months, as journals in these fields depend more heavily on library subscriptions for sustainability, with lower (APC) viability due to limited grant funding. Publishers like explicitly differentiate, allowing up to 24 months for HASS to protect revenue streams amid slower research cycles and less competitive pressure for immediacy. This extended delay is justified by stakeholders in assessments like the UK's REF 2029, who argue that shorter periods disproportionately harm HASS journals' economic models, potentially reducing output quality or diversity. Adoption rates of delayed also vary, with STEM showing higher integration into hybrid journals—where paywalled content transitions to free access post-embargo—due to stronger mandates and of citation benefits outweighing delays. HASS exhibits lower overall engagement, including delayed variants, as scholars prioritize traditional venues with entrenched peer networks over rapid sharing, resulting in fewer journals offering this model and greater resistance to shortening embargoes. Social sciences occupy an intermediate position, with uptake exceeding but trailing natural sciences, often balancing embargo lengths around 12 months to accommodate interdisciplinary funding dynamics.

Advantages and Empirical Evidence

Citation Impact and Dissemination Benefits

Empirical analyses indicate that delayed open-access journals achieve substantially higher citation impacts than closed subscription journals in comparable fields. A study examining 492 such journals, which published 111,312 articles in 2011, reported average journal impact factors of 4.42 for delayed open-access titles, compared to 1.97 for closed subscription journals. Article-level citations in these journals averaged twice the rate of closed subscription counterparts and three times that of immediate open-access journals, with the advantage persisting after controls for variables like publication year and discipline. This elevated citation performance stems from the prevalence of high-impact journals within the delayed open-access model, including prestigious titles that provide authoritative publisher-hosted versions, thereby enhancing citability and scholarly trust. The embargo period enables initial dissemination to subscribing institutions, supporting early citations among specialized audiences, while subsequent free release broadens exposure. In the dataset, 77.8% of articles became openly accessible within 12 months and 85.4% within 24 months, contributing to 14% of Web of Science citations accruing to delayed open-access content under short embargoes. Dissemination benefits arise from the model's facilitation of long-term to rigorous, peer-reviewed content without upfront loss, allowing sustained in quality that attracts submissions from leading researchers. Post-embargo extends reach to non-subscribers, including those in resource-limited settings, thereby amplifying global readership and reinforcing citation trajectories over extended periods. This hybrid approach outperforms pure subscription models in eventual visibility while mitigating the citation inconsistencies sometimes observed in immediate .

Economic Sustainability for Publishers and Quality Maintenance

Delayed open-access models enable publishers to sustain revenue streams primarily through subscription fees or institutional access during the embargo period, typically ranging from 6 to 24 months, before content becomes freely available. This approach mitigates the risk of abrupt subscription cancellations associated with immediate , allowing recovery of production costs—including editing, , and distribution—via traditional paywalls in the initial phase. For scholarly societies and smaller publishers, delayed access combined with subscriptions has been shown to reduce but not eliminate revenue, preserving financial viability without a full pivot to article processing charges (APCs). However, empirical analyses indicate limited evidence that embargo lengths significantly influence profit margins, as seen in the U.S. National Institutes of Health's 12-month policy, which has not demonstrably eroded publisher revenues since its implementation. In comparison to gold open access, where publishers rely on APCs averaging $2,000 for fully OA journals in 2023, delayed models avoid dependency on author fees that can escalate costs and incentivize higher publication volumes. This subscription-supported structure during embargoes funds ongoing operations without the financial pressures of recovery, particularly beneficial for non-profit entities facing uncertain funding transitions. Regarding quality maintenance, delayed open-access journals sustain rigorous processes funded by subscription income, reducing incentives to accept marginal submissions for revenue, unlike APC-driven gold OA models that may prioritize volume. Journal analyses reveal that delayed OA titles achieve average citation rates twice those of closed subscription journals, suggesting preserved or enhanced scholarly rigor through selective dissemination. By upholding traditional standards without per-article fees, publishers avoid the quality dilution risks observed in some immediate OA environments, where economic pressures can lead to laxer acceptance criteria. This model thus aligns cost recovery with long-term reputational incentives, fostering sustained high standards in fields reliant on subscription ecosystems.

Criticisms and Controversies

Delays in Knowledge Dissemination and Equity Concerns

Critics of delayed open-access journals contend that embargo periods, typically ranging from 6 to 24 months, impede the swift dissemination of findings, thereby potentially stalling scientific progress and innovation. In fields such as or climate science, where rapid can influence policy or therapeutic development, these delays restrict immediate sharing and collaboration, contrasting with the faster citation accrual observed in immediate open-access models. Organizations like cOAlition S argue that embargoes, even if finite, contradict the principles of by prioritizing publisher revenues over public benefit, as evidenced by their advocacy for zero-embargo policies to eliminate such restrictions on publicly funded . However, empirical studies quantifying the precise slowdown in research velocity attributable to embargoes remain scarce, with some analyses suggesting minimal long-term harm to overall knowledge flow once access opens. Equity concerns arise from the fact that during embargoes, content remains behind subscription s, exacerbating access disparities between well-resourced institutions in high-income countries and those in the Global South or underfunded settings. Researchers in low- and middle-income countries, often lacking institutional subscriptions, face prolonged exclusion from cutting-edge literature, hindering their ability to build upon or critique new work and perpetuating a cycle of uneven global participation in scholarship. This "temporary paywall" effect mirrors broader critiques of hybrid systems, where interim restrictions disadvantage independent scholars, early-career researchers, and institutions without offset funding, as noted in analyses of open-access transitions. Advocates for immediate access, including the 2022 U.S. OSTP guidance mandating zero embargoes for federally funded outputs, emphasize that such delays undermine equitable knowledge production, though publishers counter that delayed models balance without proven widespread inequity.

Resistance from Immediate Open Access Proponents and Policy Pressures

Proponents of immediate , including influential advocates like Peter Suber, have criticized embargo periods in delayed open access models as unjustified by , asserting that there is little demonstrating a causal link between embargo length and publisher revenue sustainability. These critics contend that such delays effectively extend paywalls, contradicting the core principles of by prioritizing subscription revenue over unrestricted dissemination of knowledge. Organizations such as and the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association have echoed this view, framing delayed access as a transitional compromise that undermines the movement's goal of eliminating access barriers entirely. The cOAlition S initiative, formalized through in September 2018, exemplifies organized resistance by requiring that peer-reviewed publications from publicly funded research be immediately upon publication, with no allowances for embargo periods in compliant journals or repositories. Signatories, including major funders like the and , argue that embargoes perpetuate inequities, particularly for researchers in low-income countries lacking institutional subscriptions, and delay the societal return on public investments in science. explicitly deems hybrid journals with delayed non-compliant, pressuring publishers to abandon embargoes or risk losing funding eligibility for authors. Policy pressures have escalated globally, with the U.S. Office of and Technology Policy's Nelson Memo in August 2022 directing all federal agencies to adopt zero-embargo public access policies by 2026, eliminating grace periods for delayed release of federally funded outputs. The implemented this shift in its updated Public Access Policy, effective for manuscripts accepted on or after December 31, 2025, mandating immediate deposit of accepted manuscripts or versions of record into upon publication date. Advocates behind these mandates, including open access coalitions, claim that even short embargoes hinder rapid knowledge sharing in time-sensitive fields like , potentially exacerbating global disparities in utilization. Such policies reflect a broader push from funders to enforce immediate availability, viewing delayed models as relics of subscription-era economics that fail to align with taxpayer expectations for unhindered access.

Factors Driving or Hindering Adoption

Publishers have adopted delayed open access models primarily to preserve subscription-based revenues during the embargo period, when articles experience and citation rates, thereby sustaining operational costs without immediate reliance on article processing charges (APCs). This approach allows established journals, particularly in subscription-dominant disciplines like and social sciences, to transition gradually toward broader accessibility while minimizing financial disruption, as evidenced by the persistence of 6- to 24-month embargoes in society-owned journals. Discipline-specific factors, including geographic concentrations of publishers in regions with strong subscription traditions (e.g., and ), further drive uptake, enabling maintenance of perceived prestige and peer-review rigor without abrupt revenue shifts. Adoption is also facilitated by the model's alignment with ecosystems, where delayed release complements green , providing authors flexibility while publishers retain control over versioning and during the delay. Empirical analyses indicate that in fields with slower obsolescence, such as certain biomedical subareas, embargoes mitigate risks of premature that could undermine subscription value, supporting selective implementation by high-impact outlets. Conversely, funder mandates for immediate , including cOAlition S's (implemented from 2021) and the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy's 2022 guidance requiring zero-embargo public access for federally funded research, exert significant pressure against prolonged delays, compelling journals to shorten embargoes or risk losing submissions. These policies, driven by equity arguments, have accelerated non-compliance penalties and author preferences for compliant venues, with data showing high-impact journals lagging in adaptation due to revenue dependencies. Critics highlight dissemination delays in fast-paced fields like clinical medicine, where 12-month embargoes can hinder timely application of findings, exacerbating access inequities for unaffiliated researchers in low-resource settings without institutional subscriptions. Moreover, studies reveal scant linking embargo lengths to sustained subscription profits, undermining publisher rationales and fueling resistance from advocates who view delays as barriers to innovation and public benefit. Rising competition from zero-embargo repositories and platforms further erodes the model's viability, as authors increasingly bypass traditional delays via , reducing incentives for journal adoption post-2020.

Recent Developments and Global Variations (Post-2020)

In response to mounting pressures from funding mandates, several major jurisdictions have moved toward eliminating embargo periods in favor of immediate for publicly funded research. The U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) issued guidance in August directing federal agencies to ensure free, immediate public access to peer-reviewed publications and supporting data without embargo by December 31, 2025, superseding prior policies that allowed up to 12 months of delay, such as those of the (NIH). Similarly, the European Union's program, launched in 2021, mandates immediate to peer-reviewed publications with no acceptable embargo period, requiring deposition of the final version under a . In the , (UKRI) implemented a policy effective April requiring all research articles from funded projects to be published immediately upon acceptance, without embargo, though exceptions apply for monographs up to 12 months post-publication. These shifts reflect broader implementation of initiatives like S's , which took effect in 2021 and explicitly rejects delayed as insufficient for full compliance, emphasizing immediate availability to accelerate knowledge dissemination. However, adoption of zero-embargo models has faced resistance, with publishers citing sustainability concerns; for instance, maintains journal-specific embargo periods ranging from 0 to 48 months as of 2025 to balance revenue from subscriptions and article processing charges. Empirical analyses indicate that while overall grew to 59% of articles by 2023 before declining slightly, delayed persists in subscription-heavy journals, particularly those with high impact factors, where it sustains operations without full reliance on fees that may deter submissions from underfunded researchers. Global variations highlight regional disparities in enforcement and priorities. In and , where funder mandates dominate, delayed models are increasingly marginalized, with policies like Canada's 2020 Tri-Agency Roadmap enforcing zero embargoes for federal outputs to prioritize equity and speed. Conversely, in , , and parts of , where institutional funding is limited and subscription models prevail, longer embargoes (often 12-24 months) remain common, allowing publishers to recover costs amid lower affordability; for example, among nations, only about 29% impose strict no-embargo timelines, while others permit delays to support local journals. This patchwork contributes to uneven dissemination, as evidenced by studies showing delayed journals achieving citation rates up to twice those of closed-access counterparts, yet facing criticism for perpetuating access barriers in resource-constrained regions.

Comparative Analysis

Versus Immediate Open Access and Hybrid Models

Delayed open-access journals, which impose an embargo period (typically 6–24 months) before articles become freely available, differ from immediate open-access models—where content is accessible upon publication, often via author-paid article processing charges (APCs)—in their approach to balancing revenue, access speed, and equity. Immediate open access prioritizes rapid dissemination but shifts financial burdens to authors or funders, potentially excluding researchers without grants, whereas delayed models sustain subscription revenues during the embargo to fund peer review and operations without upfront fees. Hybrid models, combining subscription access with optional APC-funded open articles in otherwise paywalled journals, attempt a middle ground but face scrutiny for allowing publishers to collect both subscription fees and APCs for overlapping content, a practice termed "double-dipping." Empirical studies on citation impact reveal nuanced differences: delayed open-access journals often achieve higher long-term citation rates than immediate gold open-access counterparts, with one analysis of journal impact factors showing delayed models averaging twice the citations of subscription-only journals and three times those of immediate gold, attributed to their prevalence in high-quality, selective venues that attract submissions regardless of access timing. Immediate open access boosts early visibility—articles in such journals receive up to 12 times more consultations in the first year compared to delayed ones—facilitating quicker knowledge spread in fast-evolving fields like medicine. However, after the embargo lifts, delayed articles exhibit comparable or superior cumulative impact, as the initial subscription barrier selects for institutional subscribers with motivated readers, countering the "open access advantage" that diminishes over time. Hybrid articles show mixed results, with some evidence of elevated citations for opted-in pieces but no systemic transition to full openness, perpetuating access divides. Economically, delayed avoids the APC escalations seen in immediate models, where fees averaged $2,000–$3,000 per article in 2023, pricing out non-Western or independent scholars and fostering . This model preserves publisher viability through delayed subscriptions, which covered operational costs for society journals without author burdens, unlike hybrids where APC revenues supplement—rather than replace—subscriptions, enabling publishers like to report hybrid uptake growth from 2015–2019 while retaining subscription income streams. Critics of immediate and hybrid approaches highlight equity gaps: APC-dependent systems exacerbate global disparities, with low-income countries contributing disproportionately few open-access papers due to fee barriers, whereas delayed access ensures eventual universality without individual payments. In terms of dissemination equity, embargoes in delayed models can hinder urgent fields, such as crises, where 6–36-month delays by major publishers limit real-time access for non-subscribers, contrasting immediate 's role in accelerating innovation during events like the . Yet, delayed systems mitigate "pay-to-publish" biases that undermine quality in APC-driven immediate , as evidenced by higher rejection rates and editorial rigor in subscription-sustained journals. Hybrid models, while offering flexibility, rarely achieve full openness and invite policy resistance, as seen in S's 2021 rejection of hybrids for lacking transparent revenue offsets against double-dipping. Overall, delayed trades short-term speed for sustainable, fee-free long-term equity, outperforming hybrids in avoiding revenue duplication while rivaling immediate models in eventual reach.

Implications for Long-Term Viability in Scholarly Communication

Delayed open-access models, by imposing embargo periods typically ranging from 6 to 24 months, enable publishers to sustain subscription-based revenue during the initial high-usage phase of an article's lifecycle, thereby funding essential operations such as peer review, editing, and archiving. This approach mitigates the risk of widespread subscription cancellations observed in immediate open-access scenarios, where libraries may forgo payments upon free availability, with empirical evidence indicating only a 2% subscription decline for 12-month embargoes compared to 6% for shorter ones. Consequently, delayed open access preserves the financial viability of society and commercial journals, particularly in fields with concentrated early readership, ensuring continued investment in quality control mechanisms that underpin scholarly rigor. Post-embargo release enhances long-term dissemination without fully eroding publisher incentives, as studies demonstrate a citation advantage of up to 19% for delayed open-access articles relative to subscription-only counterparts, even after accounting for article age and quality. This advantage, which can double citation rates in high-impact delayed open-access journals, amplifies scholarly impact over time, attracting submissions and maintaining journal prestige in an era of expanding global research output. However, viability hinges on discipline-specific embargo durations—shorter in fast-paced fields like (e.g., 2-6 months) and longer in (up to 36 months)—to align with citation half-lives and prevent revenue leakage from premature free access. Challenges to long-term sustainability arise from policy mandates shortening or eliminating embargoes, such as those from funders prioritizing immediate access, which could accelerate subscription erosion and jeopardize the subscription-funded ecosystem upon which delayed open access depends. If green open-access self-archiving circumvents embargoes en masse, publishers risk diminished traffic and ancillary revenues (e.g., advertising), potentially leading to journal consolidations or closures, as green open access relies on the persistence of subscription journals for its content pipeline. Thus, while delayed open access offers a pragmatic bridge to broader accessibility—balancing causal incentives for quality production with eventual equity in knowledge sharing—its endurance requires regulatory deference to empirical revenue data over ideological pushes for zero-embargo universality, averting a disruptive shift to article-processing-charge models prone to inequities and quality dilution in under-resourced regions.

Broader Impact on Scholarship

Effects on Research Accessibility and Innovation

Delayed open-access journals, by enforcing embargo periods—commonly 6 to 12 months—before articles become freely available, initially confine access to paying subscribers or institutions with licenses, thereby limiting to a subset of the global research community. This restriction particularly disadvantages unaffiliated scholars, those in developing countries, and non-academic stakeholders without subscription privileges, perpetuating access disparities during the critical early phase when research is most relevant for replication or application. Empirical studies reveal that, post-embargo, delayed open-access articles garner citation rates roughly twice those of subscription-only counterparts, attributed to the broadened readership once barriers lift, which amplifies visibility and scholarly engagement over time. However, compared to immediate open access, delayed models yield lower short-term citation advantages, as free availability from publication correlates with faster uptake and higher overall impact metrics in analyses controlling for article age and discipline. In terms of , embargo delays can constrain the pace of knowledge accumulation in rapidly evolving domains like and , where prompt access enables iterative experimentation, , and to or technologies; natural experiments with open-access mandates lacking embargoes, such as the NIH policy, demonstrate 12-27% elevations in citations, underscoring the value of immediacy for downstream inventive activity. Conversely, delayed access may indirectly bolster by preserving revenue streams for rigorous and selective publishing in high-impact venues, though evidence linking longer embargoes to sustained economic viability or superior outputs is scant and contested, with analyses finding negligible effects on publisher margins. Overall, while delayed open access enhances eventual accessibility without fully eroding influence, its temporal constraints risk decelerating cumulative progress in time-sensitive fields, favoring incremental rather than transformative advancements.

Challenges to Traditional Peer Review and Quality Control

Delayed journals maintain the conventional pre-publication paradigm, wherein manuscripts undergo anonymous expert evaluation prior to initial paywalled release, preserving the gatekeeping function central to traditional . This subscription-supported model enables investment in editorial oversight, contrasting with immediate variants that may incentivize volume over rigor due to article processing charges. Empirical analysis of over 111,000 articles from 2011 revealed delayed publications achieving citation rates twice those of closed subscription journals and three times those of immediate counterparts, underscoring the efficacy of this review framework in producing high-impact scholarship. Prominent examples include the New England Journal of Medicine and Science, which employ embargoes of 6 to 12 months while upholding stringent standards. The embargo mechanism, however, exposes tensions in by deferring broad , potentially insulating initial peer assessments from timely external validation. Post-embargo liberation correlates with a modest citation advantage— increases of 18.5% in analyzed peer-reviewed articles from the repository—attributable to heightened visibility rather than inherent superiority, which may amplify both affirmations and retractions if review lapses occur. This delayed scrutiny challenges the finality of traditional review, as wider readership post-embargo facilitates post-publication commentary that can highlight undetected flaws, such as methodological errors or biases overlooked in pre-publication stages. indicate delayed accounts for 14% of citations in indexed with short embargoes, suggesting enhanced engagement but also vulnerability to retrospective critiques. Sustaining rigorous under delayed further contends with economic constraints, as embargoes yield only partial revenue protection—projected losses of 6% for 6-month periods and 2% for 12-month ones—amid eroding subscription bases. This fiscal pressure risks curtailing resources for reviewer incentives or editorial depth, particularly for society-owned journals reliant on volunteer labor, thereby threatening the consistency of in an era of mounting volumes. Critics contend that such models perpetuate dependencies on opaque review processes, with embargoes viewed as impediments to immediate , though data affirm superior outcomes relative to unsubsidized alternatives.

References

  1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.22856
  2. https://ifis.libguides.com/journal-publishing-guide/open-access-models
  3. https://azhin.org/c.php?g=746944&p=5351793
  4. https://journals.co.za/publications/delayed-open-access
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6148635/
  6. https://www.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-org/ieee/web/org/pubs/oa_publishing_types.pdf
  7. https://www.gvsu.edu/library/open-access-journal-quality-indicators-144.htm
  8. https://enago.com/academy/green-open-access-publishing-pros-and-cons/
  9. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375
  10. https://researchguides.library.vanderbilt.edu/c.php?g=1389846&p=10281075
  11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236966775_Delayed_Open_Access_-_an_overlooked_high-impact_category_of_openly_available_scientific_literature
  12. https://www.mdpi.com/books/news/7326
  13. https://libguides.d.umn.edu/OA/OAtypes
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5758455/
  15. https://openeconomics.zbw.eu/en/knowledgebase/the-meaning-of-the-different-types-and-colours-of-open-access/
  16. https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/open-access/embargoes
  17. https://onderzoektips.ugent.be/en/tips/00002227/
  18. https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/10138/157658/3/Laakso_Bj_rk_2013_Delayed_OA.pdf
  19. https://www.agu.org/publications/authors/open-access
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6338832/
  21. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/02/21/forbidden-forecast-thinking-open-access-library-subscriptions/
  22. https://peerj.com/articles/4375/
  23. https://www.coalition-s.org/
  24. https://arts.st-andrews.ac.uk/philosophicaltransactions/brief-history-of-phil-trans/phil-trans-in-21st-century/
  25. https://informationr.net/ir/26-3/paper907.html
  26. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.22856
  27. https://www.cwauthors.com/article/dealing-with-the-embargo-period-as-an-author-and-a-reader
  28. https://helpcenter.pure.elsevier.com/en_US/open-access/general-introduction-to-open-access
  29. https://journals.aps.org/authors/editorial-policies
  30. https://legacyfileshare.elsevier.com/promis_misc/external-embargo-list.pdf
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6596940/
  32. https://cshl.libguides.com/open_access/OA_policies
  33. https://www.cell.com/open-access
  34. https://rupress.org/jem/pages/editorial-policies
  35. https://www.nejm.org/about-nejm/editorial-policies
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7194335/
  37. https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-science/funding/policy-compliance-faqs
  38. https://2029.ref.ac.uk/publication/open-access-consultation-and-engagement-summary/
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844020313669
  40. https://www.issi-society.org/proceedings/issi_2015/1130.pdf
  41. https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/9008/9804
  42. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2022/09/27/academia-zero-embargo/
  43. https://jodi-ojs-tdl.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/jodi-117/103
  44. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/01/14/suber-embargoes-on-publicly-funded-research/
  45. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/18/getting-open-access-embargoes-right-rational-policy-must-be-evidence-based/
  46. https://www.science.org/content/article/pay-publish-model-open-access-pricing-scientists
  47. https://www.highwirepress.com/blog/new-revenue-streams-open-access-and-pre-print
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10267799/
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004223018175
  50. https://www.coalition-s.org/the-rrs-and-publisher-equivocation-an-open-letter-to-researchers/
  51. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2015/08/why-open-access-to-information-is-crucial-for-developing-countries/
  52. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2021/01/28/open-access-and-global-south-it-is-more-than-a-matter-of-inclusion/
  53. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8691877/
  54. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/08/26/us-mandates-immediate-public-access-taxpayer-funded-research
  55. https://www.emerald.com/oir/article-split/47/6/1208/318193/Access-and-impact-barriers-to-academic
  56. https://www.coalition-s.org/plan_s_principles/
  57. https://www.science.org/content/article/white-house-requires-immediate-public-access-all-u-s--funded-research-papers-2025
  58. https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/public-access/nih-public-access-policy-overview
  59. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01938-8
  60. https://acrlog.org/2025/07/15/so-what-exactly-is-going-on-between-publishers-and-the-nih/
  61. https://crl.acrl.org/index.php/crl/article/view/24671/32491
  62. https://www.science.org/content/article/new-mandate-highlights-costs-benefits-making-all-scientific-articles-free-read
  63. https://sparcopen.org/news/2014/the-evidence-fails-to-justify-publishers-demand-for-longer-embargo-periods-on-publicly-funded-research/
  64. https://www.coalition-s.org/blog/supporting-open-access-for-20-years-five-issues-that-have-slowed-the-transition-to-full-and-immediate-oa/
  65. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/OIR-09-2022-0497
  66. https://axial.acs.org/open-science/zero-embargo-green-open-access-a-look-back-at-the-first-18-months
  67. https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-Access-Memo.pdf
  68. https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/scholarly-publishing/policies-legislation/nih-public-access-2025/
  69. http://www.openaire.eu/how-to-comply-with-horizon-europe-mandate-for-publications
  70. https://sites.gold.ac.uk/library-blog/new-ukri-open-access-policy-what-you-need-to-know-how-to-comply-and-how-we-can-help/
  71. https://www.coalition-s.org/rationale-for-the-revisions/
  72. https://pulse49.com/2025/05/15/open-access-trends-in-scholarly-publishing-2015-2024/
  73. https://mdpiblog.wordpress.sciforum.net/2024/12/24/open-access-policies/
  74. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/g20-open-access-policies-opportunity-harmonisation
  75. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01748-4
  76. https://www.coalition-s.org/why-hybrid-journals-do-not-lead-to-full-and-immediate-open-access/
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5148132/
  78. https://salons.erudit.org/en/2017/10/19/immediate-open-access-and-delayed-open-access/index.html
  79. https://www.jmir.org/article/viewFile/921/1/2942/
  80. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-024-01796-4
  81. https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24549
  82. https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-SOCSCI.AOWNTU.v1
  83. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381230436_Publishing_Embargoes_and_Versions_of_Preprints_Impact_on_the_Dissemination_of_Information
  84. https://www.altmetric.com/blog/unlocking-innovation-the-value-of-open-access-in-scientific-publications/
  85. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1007/s11192-023-04800-8
  86. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/09/18/open-access-embargoes-how-long-is-long-enough/
  87. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159614
  88. https://theconversation.com/the-logic-of-journal-embargoes-why-we-have-to-wait-for-scientific-news-53677
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5815332/
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4837983/
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4993511/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.