Hubbry Logo
Self-archivingSelf-archivingMain
Open search
Self-archiving
Community hub
Self-archiving
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Self-archiving
Self-archiving
Self-archiving
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Typical publishing workflow for an academic journal article (preprint, postprint, and published) with open access sharing rights per SHERPA/RoMEO

Self-archiving is the act of (the author's) depositing a free copy of an electronic document online in order to provide open access to it.[1] The term usually refers to the self-archiving of peer-reviewed research journal and conference articles, as well as theses and book chapters, deposited in the author's own institutional repository or open archive for the purpose of maximizing its accessibility, usage and citation impact. The term green open access has become common in recent years, distinguishing this approach from gold open access, where the journal itself makes the articles publicly available without charge to the reader.[2]

Origins

[edit]

Self-archiving was first explicitly proposed as a universal practice by Stevan Harnad in his 1994 online posting "Subversive Proposal" (later published in Association of Research Libraries[3]) although computer scientists had been practicing self-archiving in anonymous FTP archives since at least the 1980s (see CiteSeer) and physicists had been doing it since the early 1990s on the web (see arXiv).

The concept of green open access was coined in 2004 to describe a "mode of publishing in non open access journal but also self archiving it in an open access archive".[4] Different drafts of a paper may be self-archived, such as the internal non-peer-reviewed version, or the peer-reviewed version published in a journal. Green open access through self-archiving was initially enabled through institutional or disciplinary repositories, as a growing number of universities adopted policies to encourage self-archiving. Self-archiving repositories do not peer-review articles, though they may hold copies of otherwise peer-reviewed articles. Self-archiving repositories also expect that the author who self-archives has the necessary rights to do so, as copyright may have been transferred to a publisher. Therefore it may only be possible to self-archive the preprint of the article.[5]

Implementation

[edit]
See also: List of copyright policies of academic publishers

Whereas the right to self-archive postprints is often a copyright matter (if the rights have been transferred to the publisher), the right to self-archive preprints is merely a question of journal policy.[6][7]

A 2003 study by Elizabeth Gadd, Charles Oppenheim, and Steve Probets of the Department of Information Science at Loughborough University analysed 80 journal publishers' copyright agreements and found that 90 percent of publishers asked for some form of copyright transfer and only 42.5 percent allowed self-archiving in some form.[8] In 2014 the SHERPA/Romeo project recorded that of 1,275 publishers 70 percent allowed for some form of self-archiving, with 62 percent allowing both pre and postprint self-archiving of published papers.[9] In 2017 the project recorded that of 2,375 publishers 41 percent allowed pre and postprint to be self-archived. 33 percent only allowed the self-archiving of the postprint, meaning the final draft post-refereeing. 6 percent of publishers only allowed self-archiving of the preprint, meaning the pre-refereeing draft.[10]

Publishers such as Cambridge University Press[11] or the American Geophysical Union,[12] endorse self-archiving of the final published version of the article, not just peer-reviewed final drafts.

Locations for self-archiving include institutional repositories, subject-based repositories, personal websites, and social networking websites that target researchers.[13] Some publishers attempt to impose embargoes on self-archiving; embargo-lengths can be from 6–12 months or longer after the date of publication (see SHERPA/RoMEO). For embargoed deposits some institutional repositories have a request-a-copy Button with which users can request and authors can provide a single copy with one click each during the embargo.[14]

Social reference management software websites such as Mendeley, Academia.edu, and ResearchGate facilitate sharing between researchers; however, these services are often subject to criticism for using scholars' contributions for commercial purposes[15] as well as for copyright violation.[16] They are also targeted by publishers for copyright compliance, such as when Elsevier (which purchased Mendeley) issued Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notices to Academia.edu for hosting scientific papers.[17] Social networking services also do not fulfill the requirements of many self-archiving policies from grant funders, journals, and institutions.[13]

In 2013 Germany created a legal basis for green open access[18] by amending a secondary publication right into German copyright which gives scientists and researchers the legal right to self-archive their publications on the Internet, even if they have agreed to transfer all exploitation rights to a publisher. The secondary publication right applies to results of mainly publicly funded research, 12 months after the first publication. The right cannot be waived, and the author’s version is self-archived.[19]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Self-archiving

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Self-archiving is the author-driven process of depositing electronic versions of scholarly works, such as or peer-reviewed manuscripts prior to final formatting, into open digital repositories to ensure free public access and long-term preservation. Originating in the early with initiatives like , founded by physicist in 1991 as a server for high-energy physics, self-archiving has expanded to institutional and subject-specific repositories across disciplines, facilitating alongside traditional subscription models. Empirical studies demonstrate that self-archived works receive significantly higher citation counts, often 50-250% more, due to broader visibility and earlier dissemination, though challenges persist from publisher policies imposing version restrictions and embargoes, as well as concerns over the proliferation of unvetted that may include errors or unsubstantiated claims.

History

Early Concepts and Advocacy

![Illustration of manuscript versions in self-archiving][float-right] Self-archiving involves authors depositing non-commercial versions of their scholarly articles, such as preprints or accepted , into open repositories or personal websites to enable free public access, thereby bypassing subscription paywalls in traditional journal publishing. This practice emerged as a direct response to access barriers in , rooted in the principle that research dissemination should prioritize author control and unrestricted availability over publisher-imposed tolls. In the early 1990s, the intensified, with journal subscription prices escalating at unsustainable rates—often exceeding 10% annually—outpacing academic library budgets and restricting researchers' ability to access essential literature. Concurrently, advancements in digital networks facilitated new dissemination channels, exemplified by physicist Paul Ginsparg's launch of on August 14, 1991, as an automated email-based for high-energy physics papers, which demonstrated how electronic servers could enable rapid, cost-free sharing of pre-peer-review drafts among global communities. This technological shift causally underpinned early self-archiving efforts by reducing distribution barriers from physical printing and mailing to instantaneous digital transfer. Stevan Harnad advanced these concepts through his "Subversive Proposal" posted on June 27, 1994, to the VPIEJ-L , calling on scholars across disciplines to self-archive preprints freely online via the nascent . Harnad reasoned from first principles that peer-reviewed research's core value—authored content validated by unpaid referees—incurs negligible production costs beyond archiving, which digital tools render virtually free, rendering subscription models inefficient barriers to progress rather than necessary supports for quality. He advocated self-archiving as a non-disruptive supplement to journal publication, preserving while authors retained and controlled wider dissemination to accelerate research uptake.

Expansion and Key Milestones

The Budapest Open Access Initiative, convened in February 2001, endorsed self-archiving of refereed journal articles in open electronic archives as a core strategy for achieving , explicitly framing it as the "green" route alongside the "gold" route of publishing in fee-based open access journals. In 2002, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and released , an open-source digital repository software that enabled institutions to systematically collect, preserve, and disseminate scholarly materials through self-archiving workflows. This tool spurred the establishment of institutional repositories worldwide, transitioning self-archiving from ad hoc practices to structured infrastructure. By the mid-2000s, adoption expanded with the growth of software alternatives like EPrints (initially released in 2000 but widely deployed post-2002) and the creation of subject repositories in fields beyond physics, such as economics (RePEc, formalized in 1997 but expanded digitally) and , driven by advocacy for universal repository access. The implementation of the U.S. Public Access Policy in April 2008 represented a pivotal mechanism, mandating that recipients of NIH submit peer-reviewed manuscripts accepted for publication to for public archiving no later than 12 months after the official publication date. This policy, building on a voluntary precursor, compelled self-archiving for approximately NIH-supported articles annually and influenced subsequent mandates by other funders in the , such as the European Commission's Horizon 2020 guidelines (2014) requiring green deposits, thereby embedding self-archiving as a normative requirement in research .

Technical Implementation

Manuscript Versions and Publisher Policies

In self-archiving, manuscripts are categorized into distinct versions based on their stage in the publication process, each subject to varying publisher permissions. A preprint is the author's original draft submitted for peer review, lacking revisions from referees and publisher formatting, and can typically be deposited immediately in repositories since copyright transfer has not yet occurred. The postprint or accepted manuscript follows peer review incorporation but precedes the publisher's copy-editing, typesetting, and final formatting; this version is often permissible for archiving after an embargo period stipulated in the publishing agreement. The publisher's version or version of record, usually the PDF with proprietary layout and branding, is generally restricted from self-archiving due to exclusive rights retained by the publisher post-acceptance. Publisher policies on these versions diverge significantly, influencing authors' archiving options. Permissive policies, common among many publishers, allow immediate deposit of postprints without embargo; for instance, certain society journals affiliated with Wiley permit self-archiving of the accepted version subject to minimal restrictions, prioritizing dissemination over revenue protection. In contrast, commercial publishers like impose journal-specific embargoes on postprints, ranging from 12 to 36 months—for example, Research Policy enforces a 36-month delay—to safeguard subscription models, though preprints remain unrestricted. These variations stem from differing economic incentives, with societies often viewing archiving as aligned with mission-driven access goals, while for-profits emphasize delayed open availability to maintain paywalls. Tools such as the SHERPA/RoMEO database, launched in 2004 by Jisc and the University of Nottingham, aggregate and classify these policies into categories like "green" (archiving allowed) or "white" (not allowed), enabling authors to verify permissions empirically before deposit. Despite widespread permissive policies—covering approximately 79% of journals for some form of postprint archiving in institutional repositories—voluntary compliance remains low at around 15-20%, as authors often overlook or undervalue self-archiving absent mandates, underscoring policy feasibility's dependence on awareness and enforcement rather than prohibition alone.

Repositories and Archiving Practices

Self-archiving relies on a variety of repository infrastructures tailored to different needs, including disciplinary repositories focused on specific fields, institutional repositories hosted by universities or organizations, and general-purpose centralized platforms. Disciplinary repositories such as , launched in 1991 by primarily for physics, , and , and , established in 2013 by for life sciences and biology, enable field-specific curation and rapid dissemination within communities. Institutional repositories, frequently built on open-source platforms like —developed by MIT in 2002—or EPrints from the , serve to collect and preserve outputs from affiliated researchers, supporting organizational mandates for deposit. Centralized repositories, exemplified by operated by since 2013, provide multidisciplinary options with features like automatic DOI assignment for any output, accommodating uploads beyond traditional academic disciplines. The procedural steps for depositing content emphasize technical execution and standardization. Authors first identify a repository aligned with their discipline or affiliation, then prepare the file in a compatible format such as PDF. Metadata entry follows, encompassing elements like title, author names and affiliations, abstract, keywords, subject classifications, and linkages to publisher DOIs or related works to enhance context and citability; this often adheres to basic schemas like Dublin Core for consistency. The upload occurs through a web-based interface, where files are submitted with optional embargo settings or access controls, followed by verification of checksums for integrity. Repositories preserve DOIs or handles post-deposit to maintain persistent links, ensuring the archived item remains citable independently of publisher-hosted versions. Interoperability standards underpin repository functionality, with the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) widely implemented to expose records for automated syndication. This HTTP-based protocol supports six core verbs for querying and retrieving metadata, enabling services like or aggregators such as BASE to harvest and index content across disparate systems without direct repository modifications. Compliance with OAI-PMH, often in XML formats, facilitates cross-repository searchability and reduces silos, though implementation varies by platform— for instance, and fully support it for broad metadata exposure.

Advantages and Empirical Evidence

Enhanced Accessibility and Visibility

Self-archiving enables authors to deposit manuscripts in public repositories, granting immediate free access to research outputs without requiring subscriptions or fees. This mechanism directly bypasses traditional paywalls imposed by commercial publishers, which often limit readership to users affiliated with well-funded institutions. As a result, self-archived works become available to a wider audience, including independent researchers, students, and professionals lacking institutional access. In regions with limited resources, such as developing countries, self-archiving addresses empirical barriers posed by high subscription costs that restrict uptake of paywalled journals. For example, analyses have shown that via self-archiving facilitates greater dissemination in low- and middle-income settings, where traditional access models exacerbate knowledge inequalities. Repositories hosting self-archived content report elevated download volumes from these areas compared to subscription-restricted counterparts, underscoring the role of unrestricted availability in broadening reach. Self-archiving also enhances long-term visibility by preserving manuscripts in stable digital repositories, safeguarding against disruptions like publisher bankruptcies or platform migrations that could otherwise lead to access loss. A examination of over 7 million digital publications revealed that more than one-quarter lacked proper archiving, highlighting the vulnerability of non-self-archived works, whereas repository deposits ensure persistent availability independent of journal status. This preservation extends the effective lifespan of , maintaining discoverability through persistent identifiers and .

Impacts on Citations and Research Dissemination

Self-archived articles receive substantially higher citation rates compared to non-archived counterparts, with empirical analyses indicating boosts ranging from 18.7% to 36%. A 2024 study of bioRxiv, a prominent self-archiving platform for life sciences preprints, found that articles deposited there exhibited an 18.7% increase in forward citations, attributing this to enhanced early access and visibility prior to formal publication. Similarly, a Purdue University analysis of self-archived works reported a 22% higher citation rate, controlling for factors like journal prestige and author productivity. These gains are most pronounced for higher-quality research, where self-archiving amplifies uptake without evidence of self-selection bias alone driving the effect. Beyond raw citation volume, self-archiving diversifies the geographic, institutional, and disciplinary origins of citing works, broadening research dissemination. Self-archived publications attract citations from a wider array of countries, subregions, and institutions, particularly those in underrepresented areas with limited subscription access. This effect stems from reduced barriers to discovery, enabling scholars in resource-constrained settings to engage with and build upon findings that might otherwise remain paywalled. In fields reliant on rapid iteration, such as physics, preprints demonstrate accelerated citation accrual, with self-archived drafts often cited months before peer-reviewed versions, facilitating quicker knowledge diffusion across global networks. Causal mechanisms for these impacts include the "" advantage, where self-archiving precedes journal delays, allowing citations to accumulate sooner and compound over time. Preprint-to-peer-review citation patterns in physics underscore this, as deposits enable immediate feedback loops and integrations into subsequent work, evidenced by higher usage metrics and forward references in high-energy subfields. Overall, these dynamics enhance uptake by prioritizing empirical over traditional gatekeeping, with quantified benefits persisting across disciplines.

Criticisms and Challenges

Economic Effects on Publishing Incentives

Self-archiving challenges the traditional subscription-based of academic publishers by enabling authors to distribute versions of their manuscripts freely, potentially substituting for paid journal access and prompting library cancellations. Publishers maintain that this undermines the financial incentives to sustain high-cost services such as , copy-editing, and long-term , which are funded primarily through institutional subscriptions. Without adequate revenues, investments in these quality-assurance processes could diminish, leading to a potential degradation in overall standards. A core economic concern is the free-riding problem, where authors and their institutions benefit from and provided by peer-reviewed journals—services subsidized by subscription fees—while bypassing payment through self-archiving, thereby eroding the funding mechanism for the scholarly ecosystem. This dynamic creates disincentives for publishers, including learned societies, to maintain or enhance editorial infrastructure, as non-contributing parties capture the value without sharing costs. Scholarly associations, in particular, risk shortfalls that could necessitate higher membership dues or reduced services if self-archiving uptake accelerates without compensatory models. Empirical evidence on revenue impacts remains limited and contested, with low self-archiving rates (historically below 20% for many fields) precluding widespread cancellations to date; however, publishers project that near-universal adoption without embargoes could precipitate significant subscription losses by commoditizing access and diminishing the perceived exclusivity of journal versions. Studies of hybrid journals, which combine subscriptions with optional fees, indicate stagnant or pressured traditional revenues amid rising self-archived alternatives, as libraries reassess value-for-money amid free substitutes. Critics of self-archiving mandates argue this trajectory fosters underinvestment, potentially shifting costs to authors via article processing charges or compromising non-commercial publishers' viability.

Quality Control and Version Management Issues

![Diagram illustrating the progression from preprint to postprint to published version in self-archiving][float-right] Self-archiving often results in multiple versions of manuscripts being deposited across repositories without standardized versioning protocols, leading to confusion among researchers. For instance, differences between and peer-reviewed versions, including revisions from , can persist if authors fail to update or clearly link versions, prompting citations to outdated content. A case study of the HTSeq Python framework on , posted in 2014 and published in Bioinformatics in 2015, illustrates this: the garnered 27 citations in , with citations continuing into 2018 despite the availability of the updated published version that received 2,304 citations overall. Such practices undermine the authority of peer-reviewed content, as search engines like may prioritize accessible preprints, directing users to potentially superseded material. Erroneous or retracted self-archived works exacerbate challenges, as repositories typically lack mechanisms to systematically remove or flag problematic deposits. Analysis of preprinted in life and medical sciences identified 30 retractions across major servers like and , comprising 0.01% of posted content, with 67% involving ethical or procedural misconduct leading to unreliable conclusions; however, only 37% of these retractions were clearly noted on the servers, and just 5 were fully withdrawn, allowing retracted preprints to remain accessible. Unlike publisher-managed journals with centralized retraction processes, self-archiving relies on initiative or repository discretion, permitting superseded or flawed versions to linger and potentially propagate errors through ongoing citations. The decentralized nature of self-archiving contrasts with publisher oversight, contributing to metadata inconsistencies that hinder discoverability and accuracy. Studies of eprint archives highlight prevalent issues such as validation errors and missing elements in metadata records, necessitating additional quality assurance procedures like automated checks to mitigate these deficiencies. Without uniform curation, repositories may contain incomplete or erroneous metadata, reducing the reliability of searches and complicating version tracking compared to controlled publishing workflows. Traditional copyright transfer agreements (CTAs) in scholarly publishing require authors to assign full ownership of their work to the publisher upon acceptance, granting the publisher exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and control derivatives, which can conflict with authors' inherent property interests in creations derived from their intellectual labor. This transfer often limits self-archiving unless explicitly permitted, as publishers seek to protect subscription-based revenue models, though first-principles ownership—where authors initially hold all rights as originators—underpins arguments for retaining dissemination privileges. To mitigate these tensions, authors can attach amendments like the SPARC Author Addendum, introduced in 2006, which modifies the CTA to reserve non-exclusive rights for personal use, teaching, and non-commercial self-archiving of the author's final manuscript version. Publisher policies on self-archiving have evolved since the early 2000s, with outright prohibitions becoming uncommon as pressures mounted; by 2011, analyses of policies indicated only about 5% of journals banned self-archiving entirely, reflecting a shift toward accommodating author deposits of preprints or postprints. Approximately 80% of publishers tracked in policy databases permit some form of self-archiving, though terms vary by version and repository type, allowing to balance property retention with publication incentives. For instance, the Association for Machinery (ACM) explicitly grants to self-archive both preprints and accepted manuscripts (postprints) immediately, without embargo, as outlined in its 2023 policy update. Empirical surveys reveal high permissiveness but underscore gaps in awareness and utilization of these , with researchers often misunderstanding or overlooking self-archiving permissions embedded in CTAs. A 2009 analysis found authors frequently overestimated their retained , contributing to low self-archiving rates despite permissive policies, as confusion over contractual nuances deters proactive assertion. This disconnect highlights the need for authors to review and amend agreements upfront, prioritizing retention of archiving to align with causal incentives for broader without undermining viability.

Mandates, Embargoes, and Compliance

Funder and institutional mandates have increasingly required self-archiving to promote , often specifying deposit timelines and repository types. , launched in 2018 by cOAlition S, mandates immediate for funded research, permitting self-archiving of peer-reviewed manuscripts in compliant repositories upon acceptance, provided the version of record or accepted manuscript is made available without embargo where publisher policies allow. Similarly, the UK's Research and Innovation (UKRI) policy, effective from April 2022 with updates in 2023, requires authors to deposit the accepted manuscript in a repository no later than completion of the work, allowing embargoes of up to 6 months for most councils and 12 months for arts and humanities/economic and social research. The U.S. (NIH) Public Access Policy, mandatory since 2008 and revised for 2025, obligates deposit of the final peer-reviewed manuscript in upon acceptance for publication, ensuring public access within 12 months. Embargo periods serve as a negotiated balance between rapid dissemination and publishers' subscription revenue models, with empirical analyses of publisher policies revealing 6-12 months as prevalent for accepted manuscripts. For instance, surveys of major publishers indicate standard embargoes of 12 months for sciences and longer for , derived from aggregated self-archiving permissions tracked across thousands of journals. These delays, often codified in agreements, aim to mitigate economic impacts while complying with funder demands, though extensions beyond 12 months are criticized for delaying . Compliance with these mandates remains inconsistent, hampered by administrative burdens, awareness gaps, and version-of-record confusion. Tools like SHERPA/JULIET provide searchable databases of over 100 funder policies, facilitating verification of self-archiving requirements. Studies on NIH adherence, for example, report faculty awareness at around 70% but highlight persistent challenges like concerns and deposit overhead, contributing to variable enforcement. Institutional monitoring and automated workflows have improved rates in some cases, yet overall adherence hovers below universal levels, underscoring enforcement gaps in decentralized systems.

Broader Impacts

Effects on the Scholarly Publishing

Self-archiving has prompted a shift toward models in which authors deposit or accepted versions in repositories, supplementing rather than supplanting access to publishers' version-of-record articles via subscriptions. Many publishers, including , permit self-archiving of accepted manuscripts after embargo periods ranging from 12 to 48 months, depending on the journal, thereby integrating green open access into their subscription frameworks. This adaptation allows publishers to retain revenue from institutional subscriptions while accommodating author-driven dissemination. Empirical data indicate green open access uptake, primarily through self-archiving, at 10-25% of scholarly articles overall, with higher rates in sciences such as physics where platforms like facilitate widespread preprints. The PEER project, which monitored the effects of large-scale self-archiving from 2008 to 2012, found no substantial evidence of subscription cancellations attributable to repository deposits, suggesting self-archiving disrupts access barriers without undermining publishers' core business. Publishers have responded by investing in open access infrastructure, such as Elsevier's expansion into hybrid and fully journals, to capture value from article processing charges alongside self-archiving permissions. Despite these changes, subscription revenues persist as the dominant stream, with major publishers maintaining profit margins above 30%, though facing pressures to differentiate through enhanced services like data analytics and . This equilibrium reflects self-archiving's role in diversifying the ecosystem without precipitating a full transition away from paid models.

Societal and Economic Ramifications

Self-archiving of taxpayer-funded research promotes public accountability by broadening access to outputs supported by public investment, yet it introduces economic risks of underinvestment in dissemination services traditionally funded by subscription revenues. Publishers apply embargoes on self-archiving to mitigate subscription losses, as widespread free availability could erode financial incentives for investing in copy-editing, indexing, and non-academic that enhance discoverability beyond scholarly circles. Without these revenues, volunteer-based archives may struggle to replicate proprietary quality controls, potentially leading to under-resourced systems unable to support scalable signaling through rigorous . Adoption rates reveal causal disparities across disciplines, with self-archiving prevalent in STEM fields—exceeding 70% in science, , , and —due to established norms in areas like high-energy physics and , where preprint servers function as community standards. In contrast, and social sciences exhibit rates below 20%, often 9-14%, reflecting entrenched reliance on publishing and limited institutional mandates, which undermines unsubstantiated claims of equitable knowledge democratization without addressing field-specific barriers like revenue models dependent on sales to niche audiences. This uneven uptake suggests self-archiving amplifies access in digitally mature fields while risking neglect of others, potentially skewing societal benefits toward STEM-driven applications over humanistic insights. Unvetted self-archived preprints carry risks of misinformation dissemination, eroding public trust when erroneous claims gain traction absent peer review, as evidenced during the COVID-19 pandemic where rapid preprint postings fueled viral but flawed interpretations amplified via social media. These incidents highlight a causal trade-off: while self-archiving fosters accountability by exposing research to broader scrutiny, the lack of mandatory vetting in repositories contrasts with publisher-enforced standards, increasing susceptibility to "junk science" influencing policy or public behavior without subsequent correction. Balanced against this, empirical gains in visibility for validated works underscore self-archiving's role in accelerating evidence-based societal discourse, provided users discern provisional from certified content.

Recent Developments and Future Outlook

Self-archiving adoption has shown mixed trends through , with overall rates declining to approximately 5% of publications in 2023 from 9% in 2020, according to industry reports, though targeted policy incentives have driven localized increases. In , policy reforms implemented around 2024-2025 accelerated uptake, serving as a model for rapid compliance gains in national research ecosystems. Similarly, one institutional initiative reported manuscript deposits more than doubling from 2023 to , countering broader stagnation by streamlining author workflows. These upticks correlate with expanded use of platforms like OSF Preprints, which facilitate easier deposition in fields amenable to immediate sharing. Disciplinary variations remain pronounced, with self-archiving prevalent in and due to entrenched preprint cultures on servers like and . recorded a record 24,226 submissions in October 2024, reflecting sustained dominance in , , and related areas where preprints often precede journal publication by norm. similarly supports high participation in life sciences, with ongoing growth in uploads despite occasional platform constraints. In contrast, social sciences exhibit lower rates, around 15-20% for non-mandated archiving, attributed to concerns over data sensitivity and proprietary analyses that deter preemptive sharing. bucks this trend somewhat, with rates up to 60% in some samples, highlighting field-specific permissiveness. Policy shifts have bolstered these patterns, particularly through cOAlition S's post- expansions, including the Rights Retention Strategy, which empowers authors to self-archive accepted manuscripts under CC BY licenses regardless of publisher agreements, enhancing compliance in funded research. Empirical uptake has improved via automated deposit tools aligned with these mandates, though overall Plan S green route adherence remains modest at estimated 30% without enforcement. In the United States, the revised Public Access Policy, advanced to July 1, 2025, mandates zero-embargo self-archiving for federally funded work, potentially elevating rates across disciplines by integrating repository deposits into grant requirements.

Potential Innovations and Limitations

Emerging innovations in self-archiving leverage to automate metadata extraction and version tracking within institutional repositories, enabling tools to scan full-text documents for enriching records and improving efficiency. Such AI applications address longstanding challenges in managing evolving versions by pre-populating fields like keywords and abstracts, potentially reducing manual labor and errors in deposit processes as demonstrated in recent repository pilots. technology offers complementary advancements through frameworks for immutable , allowing tamper-evident records of submission histories and authorship claims to verify authenticity in decentralized archives. These pilots, explored since 2024, aim to enhance trust in self-archived content amid growing volumes, though full-scale implementation remains nascent due to integration complexities. Persistent limitations hinder broader scalability, especially in non-STEM disciplines like and social sciences, where self-archiving adoption lags owing to differing cultures, longer peer-review cycles, and concerns over and navigation. Researchers in these fields report higher barriers to repository use compared to STEM counterparts, including confusion over permissible versions and lower institutional mandates, resulting in uneven open access penetration. Furthermore, the ecosystem faces risks from predatory mimicry, where deceptive platforms imitate legitimate repositories to exploit s via hidden fees or lax verification, eroding credibility akin to issues in predatory journals. Without robust mechanisms, such entities could proliferate, complicating discovery of verifiable self-archived works. Looking ahead, strengthened mandates from funders and institutions may accelerate self-archiving rates, building on trends toward universal deposit policies, yet encounter pushback from publishers emphasizing unsubstantiated erosion and unproven dilutions. Empirical assessments of impacts on citation metrics and streams remain inconclusive, suggesting that widespread resistance could materialize if data reveal net harms to ecosystem sustainability, underscoring the need for evidence-driven refinements over ideological enforcement.

References

  1. https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/licensing/self-archiving.html
  2. https://blogs.libraries.indiana.edu/scholcomm/2025/10/20/what-is-self-archiving-and-why-you-should/
  3. https://info.arxiv.org/about/index.html
  4. https://sparcopen.org/news/2021/celebrating-30-years-of-arxiv-and-its-lasting-legacy-on-scientific-advancement/
  5. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013636
  6. https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24932
  7. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2024.2364385
  8. https://tnstate.libguides.com/scholarlypublishing/self-archiving
  9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/self-archive
  10. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/253351/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8276192/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8335983/
  13. https://wiki.lib.sun.ac.za/images/e/ef/A-subversive-proposal.pdf
  14. https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2600006/
  16. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1266&context=libraryscience
  17. https://sparcopen.org/our-work/nih-public-access-policy/
  18. https://www.publisso.de/en/advice/publishing-advice-faqs/preprint-and-postprint
  19. https://libfaq.nus.edu.sg/faq/257412
  20. https://libraryguides.mcgill.ca/authorrights/KeyTerms
  21. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/research-impact/sharing-versions-of-journal-articles/
  22. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies-and-standards/sharing/policy-faq
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/research-policy/publish/open-access-options
  24. https://legacyfileshare.elsevier.com/promis_misc/external-embargo-list.pdf
  25. https://www.southampton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3691.html
  26. https://www.jisc.ac.uk/news/all/sherpa-services-combined-into-new-user-friendly-platform-open-policy-finder
  27. https://www.academia.edu/27089511/Open_Access_Repositories_maximizing_and_measuring_research_impact_through_university_and_research_funder_open_access_self_archiving_mandates
  28. https://guides.lib.wayne.edu/c.php?g=739802&p=5312532
  29. https://www.utwente.nl/en/bms/datalab/datasharing/new-rich-text-document/
  30. https://www.openarchives.org/pmh/
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC557876/
  32. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.03.23284111v1.full-text
  33. https://www.scidev.net/global/features/open-access-archiving-the-fast-track-to-building-r/
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23778268_Open_Access_Archiving_The_Fast_Track_to_Building_Research_Capacity_in_Developing_Countries
  35. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00616-5
  36. https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/jlsc/article/16288/galley/15375/view/
  37. https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.24932?af=R
  38. https://elifesciences.org/articles/52646
  39. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2045&context=iatul
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2956678/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11979259/
  42. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/529407
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4837983/
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8098815/
  45. https://jodi-ojs-tdl.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/jodi-117/103
  46. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/263179/
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027795362200898X
  48. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2018/05/21/journals-lose-citations-preprint-servers-repositories/
  49. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9060331/
  50. https://ijdc.net/index.php/ijdc/article/download/646/573/2571
  51. http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue/38/guy/
  52. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1065385.1065527
  53. https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=slis_pub
  54. https://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/SPARC-Author-Rights-Brochure-2006.pdf
  55. https://digital-scholarship.org/digitalkoans/2011/11/27/sherpa-estimates-that-only-5-of-journals-prohibit-self-archiving/
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0099133319301004
  57. https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/publication-rights-and-licensing-policy
  58. https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/jlsc/article/12827/galley/12493/view/
  59. https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.14293/A2199-1006.01.SOR-COMPSCI.LZQ19.v1
  60. https://www.ukri.org/publications/ukri-open-access-policy/uk-research-and-innovation-open-access-policy/
  61. https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/public-access/nih-public-access-policy-overview
  62. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/09/18/open-access-embargoes-how-long-is-long-enough/
  63. https://www.oajournals-toolkit.org/policies/compliance-with-funder-policies-and-mandates
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3543125/
  65. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&context=libraries_facpub
  66. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/publish/article/open-access/insights/open-access-self-archiving-wiley-publishing-green-open-access/
  67. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0272730
  68. https://serials.uksg.org/articles/1231/files/submission/proof/1231-1-1636-1-10-20150226.pdf
  69. https://www.elsevier.com/researcher/author/open-access
  70. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=scholcom
  71. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227623652_The_economic_implications_of_alternative_publishing_models
  72. https://vuir.vu.edu.au/15222/1/EI-ASPM_Report.pdf
  73. https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/jlsc/article/id/18316/download/pdf/
  74. https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1268&context=fpml
  75. https://www.codastory.com/disinformation/scientists-prepublish-disinformation/
  76. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/a-lot-of-covid-19-papers-havent-been-peer-reviewed-reader-beware/
  77. https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2022/02/07/the-risk-of-scientific-misinformation-with-preprints-and-science-twitter/
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9384020/
  79. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03276-1
  80. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03400352251364821
  81. https://blog.arxiv.org/2024/11/04/arxiv-sets-new-record-for-monthly-submissions-again/
  82. https://asapbio.org/recent-drop-in-life-science-preprint-posting-due-to-capacity-problems-at-research-square/
  83. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Open-Access-OA-Self-Archiving-Percentages-for-Institutions-With-Self-Archiving-Mandates_fig4_47545539
  84. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Self-archiving-by-discipline-and-article-version_fig1_28804567
  85. https://www.coalition-s.org/rights-retention-strategy/
  86. https://insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.556
  87. https://digital-scholarship.org/digitalkoans/category/self-archiving/
  88. https://hangingtogether.org/examining-the-role-of-ai-in-institutional-repository-workflows/
  89. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.16605
  90. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284437902_Trusting_Records_Is_Blockchain_Technology_the_Answer
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2096720925000053
  92. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09610006221146768
  93. https://www.editage.com/insights/open-access-publishing-for-humanities-researchers
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6174996/
  95. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2010/04/27/plos-squandered-opportunity-the-problem-with-pursuing-the-path-of-least-resistance/
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11317595/
  97. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2022/09/28/guest-post-missing-revenue-in-the-global-flip-getting-the-oa-math-right/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.