If this is the case, you might expect a commensurate reduction in the subscription cost.

"the only available green OA option [supported by ACS] when publishing in ACS journals". It is the rightsholder's right to apply whichever license they choose to their works. A CC BY license is irrevocable, so it is possible to assign a CC BY license to the accepted manuscript prior to licensing the publisher. This was the authors right, and their option, but it was not one supported by ACS. ACS are now licensing the right to charge the author for this same option from the rightsholder (often the author).

Institutional read and publish agreements come to an end, or need re-negotiating. This issue affecting those instituions could be used by the publisher to push for less favourable terms.

If the UK does not reach an agreement with ACS, it will apply to all UK authors intending to submit content to the REF from January 2026.

Green open access and rights retention (i.e. the rightsholder applying a CC BY license to the accepted manuscript prior to licensing the publisher) were zero-cost to the author options for open access, which are part of a sustainable transition away from subscription-based models. ACS have set a precedent for charging for this option, they have not increased the options available to authors.

It does technically provide an alternative, but authors were already entitled to take this alternative option.

It's unclear what the subscription costs for the same works are covering if this is the purpose of the ADC.

Subscriptions, document delivery, relicensing, APCs on Gold open access publications etc. also cover the cost of publishing services through the final editorial decision. Content which is available in a repository is also part of a subscription, so this is double-dipping. Green open access can only exist if there are sustainable subscription titles to review and accept the manuscripts. Therefore, libraries should maintain subscriptions to support that activity. Typically, if libraries are looking to cut content, it is either because it does not meet their need or because the costs are unsustainable.

Some of those funders will also not allow their authors to use their funds to pay fees to subscription/hybrid journals. This is putting those authors at a disadvantage or forcing their institutions to enter into suboptimal agreements with the publisher to enable publishing in those venues.

It's not clear how this supports researchers or adds value.

"new [paid] option". Copyright owners can assign whichever license they choose to their works. If a CC BY license is applied to authors originals or the accepted manuscript arising from a submission, prior to signing away any of these rights, a zero-embargo green open access option was already available. This option is for the author to license the publisher to charge them a fee. The cost and the licensing requirements asserted by the publisher may become a barrier to rightsholders engaging in an activity they previously had an option to engage with.

https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/open-research-emerald/our-open-research-policies

Emerald already has progressive green open access / self archiving policies which allow immediate open access for the authors accepted manuscript (AAM) under a creative commons attribution non-commercial license (CC BY-NC). This demonstrates that Emerald cannot agree with much of the statement they are signing. Note, Plan S ask for CC BY or CC BY-ND is permissible under Plan S by exception. The funders' request for a more permissive CC BY license is all I can identify as a potential problem, but there are no specific concerns raised in the statement.

Similar to CUP and IOP, Sage, and Springer Nature, many UK institutions have signed a contract to fund Wiley's publishing activities for four more years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

Furthermore, the financial credit cap for the Wiley deal is operationally low, resulting in additional expenditure for institutions at the end of the calendar year when open access support funds are running low. This additional cost is not sustainable for many institutions and unintentionally creates inequitable access to no-additional-cost publishing.

UK institutions have been through several terms of the Springer Compact deal and continue to negotiate amendments and additional terms with added expense. The Springer Compact deal delivers no-additional-cost publishing for an upfront commitment of funds by institutions. Regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories institutions continue to support Springer Nature's publishing activities. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

Similar to CUP and IOP, many UK institutions have signed a contract to fund Sage's publishing activities for three years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

Similar to CUP, some UK institutions have signed a contract to fund IOP's publishing activities for four years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

Many UK institutions have signed a contract to fund CUP's publishing activities for four years as a result of Plan S, regardless of how many authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) are openly available in repositories. This fact undermines the arguments made above by the STM Association about the rights retention strategy (RRS) undermining financial sustainability.

This conclusion is focusing on the statements above, which I personally do not consider to be accurate.

What is allowed = what is legal (i.e. copyright law) and what the journal is willing to publish or reject. If authors are told they should consult the journal and the only response is the journal's own policy, assuming it contradicts the right retention strategy (RRS), the Publisher/Editor/Production Editor will be misinforming the author and denying them their legal rights.

It's my interpretation that the funders agree which is why Wellcome Trust wrote to publishers asking if they would change their policies to reflect the rights retention strategy.

This misrepresents the situation. Authors accepted manuscripts (AAM) have been shared on institutional and subject repositories for around two decades, with greater prevalence in the last decade. Despite this the version of record (VoR) is still valued and preserves the integrity of the scholarly record. The integrity of the VoR continues to be maintained by the publisher and where well-run repository management are made aware, corrections can be reflected in a repository. The solution to this problem is the publisher taking their responsibility to preserving the integrity of the scholarly record seriously and notifying repositories, not asserting that authors should not exercise their right to apply a prior license to their AAM.

So far as I know this is not tested or based on any evidence. If the publishers think an open accepted manuscript would undermine the version of record, it doesn't demonstrate much confidence in their added value to me.

This is an inaccurate statement or at the very least misrepresents the situation. Despite the Rights Retention Strategy (RRS), publisher may - and many do - continue to charge page charges, over-run charges, colour charges, submission fees, society fees, etc. to the author. The author may also choose to pay an open access article processing charge (APC), without using their funder's money. Furthermore, the RRS does not eliminate the publisher charging subscription fees, licensing fees for the reproduction of content (e.g. figure resue), access to meta-content, docdel etc. or, indeed, individual access to the version of record (VoR) where a reader has identified a need to see the VoR after seeing the authors accepted manuscript (AAM)

Repository based open access is not free. Institutions and other organisations have invested significant resources into the development, maintenance, management and quality assurance of repositories and their content. This would not be necessary if academic journals publishing was more equitable, transparent and sustainable.

Again, it is not at all clear what is meant by this statement. Equity in academia is an incredibly important goal. This statement currently reads like unsubstantiated rhetoric. Libraries, Institutions and funders have found that the unintended consequences of deficient deals with publishers supported by their funds can include inequitable access to no-additional-cost publishing. However, the intention of the Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) is to arm all authors with detailed knowledge of their rights to ensure they have the same minimum opportunity to widely disseminate their work. Furthermore, by providing a version of an output with a CC BY license there is greater equity around accessing the research and therefore greater opportunity to build on it for public benefit, making a more equitable environment for all. The version of record (VoR) remains important in this scenario, so more equitable access should not undermine the sustainability of journals and platforms which are valued.

It’s not entirely clear what is meant by this statement. This is incredibly inflammatory rhetoric for most academics who take academic freedom very seriously - for very good reasons. However, the academic has the freedom not to accept a grant if they fundamentally disagree with the funder’s desired approach to effective dissemination of the research they support. Furthermore, the rights retention strategy (RRS) is in place to give the authors more freedom of choice over what happens to the version of record (VoR). Because of the RRS, the author can submit to the most appropriate journal for the research regardless of whether it explicitly provides a compliant route to publication (assuming the journal takes the submission forwards) or whether or not the author can access funds to pay a publication charge (APC) in a hybrid subscription journal.

This is an untested statement and does not take into account the perspectives of those contributing to the publishers' revenue. The Rights Retention Strategy (RRS) relies on the author's accepted manuscript (AAM) and for an AAM to exist and to have the added value from peer-review a Version of Record (VoR) must exist. Libraries recognise this fundamental principle and continue to subscribe to individual journals of merit and support lucrative deals with publishers. From some (not all) librarians' and possibly funders' perspectives these statements could undermine any mutual respect.

The publishers below will not support the Plan S rights retention strategy (RRS). In its simplest form the RRS re-asserts the authors' rights as the rights holder to assign a copyright license of their choice (CC BY informed by their funding agency) to all versions of their research/intellectual output. In the case of the RRS states that the author should apply a CC BY license to their accepted manuscript (AAM) if they cannot afford to pay article processing charges or choose not to apply a CC BY license to the Version of Record (VoR), which they are free to do. Therefore, this statement is either saying the undersigned will not carry publications forward to publication (most appropriate approach), or they will not support the same copyright laws which fundamentally protects their rights and revenue after a copyright transfer agreement is signed by the rightsholder.

Academy of Dental Materials

Acoustical Society of America

AIP Publishing

American Academy of Ophthalmology

American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus

American Chemical Society

American Gastroenterological Association American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Medical Association

American Physical Society

American Society for Investigative Pathology

American Society for Radiation Oncology

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Hematology

American Society of Clinical Oncology

American Association of Physicists in Medicine

American Association of Physics Teachers

AVS – The Society for Science and Technology of Materials, Interfaces, and Processing

Brill

British Journal of Anaesthesia

Budrich Academic Press

Cambridge Media

Cambridge University Press

Canadian Cardiovascular Society

De Gruyter

Duncker & Humblot

Elsevier

Emerald

Erich Schmidt Verlag

French Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology

Frommann-Holzboog Verlag

Future Science Group 

Hogrefe

International Association for Gondwana Research

IOP Publishing

Journal of Nursing Regulation

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT).

Julius Klinkhardt KG

La Découverte

Laser Institute America

Materials Research Forum LLC

The Optical Society (OSA)

Pearson Benelux

SAGE Publishing

Society of Rheology

Springer Nature

Taylor & Francis Group

The Geological Society of America

Thieme Group

Uitgeverij Verloren

Verlag Barbara Budrich

Vittorio Klostermann

wbv Media

Wiley

Wolters Kluwer