Release Date: January 10, 2025
Introduction
Scholars seek to advance knowledge. Critical factors in advancing knowledge include ensuring scholarly work is (1) of the highest quality, (2) made available as quickly as possible given the requirements of ensuring quality, and (3) made accessible to the widest possible audience. Open-access publishing provides a proven means of sharing high-quality scholarly work with the largest possible audience in a relatively quick manner.
Yet scholarly work distributed through open-access publication is sometimes viewed with skepticism by authors, readers, and members of faculty performance review committees. It has also been greeted with concern by traditional commercial publishers who view it as a threat to long-standing commercial publishing models. Some scholars, for example, have equated open-access publications with work distributed through self-publishing, a perception that stems, arguably, from a lack of knowledge of the review and development processes carried out by high-quality open-access publishers. And while numerous publishers have embraced aspects of open-access publishing, such as making older work available freely and accepting subventions to release newer work as open-access publications, a number of publishers have embraced funding models that substitute high-priced subventions for revenue once provided through subscriptions. In this latter case, while the work is available freely to readers, scholars who lack resources to cover subvention costs may find their ability to publish in these venues sharply curtailed.
Over the past three decades, the primary drivers of open-access publishing have been (1) the scholars who produce, disseminate, and read open-access publications and (2) governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and foundations that provide funding for research. Moving forward, academic institutions and professional organizations should take on greater responsibility for developing and supporting sustainable open-access publishing.
Equally important, scholars, the institutions that house them, and professional organizations should recognize the complexities of the scholarly publishing ecosystem. Publishers are not created equally—nor do they operate in equivalent ways or with equivalent resources. Strong differences exist among the large corporate entities that dominate scholarly publishing, the smaller (often quite small) university presses that have long supported scholarly publishing, and the growing number of open-access scholarly publishers. Scholars, institutions, and professional organizations should recognize both the costs and the affordances of working with different types of publishers.
The principles articulated in this document are based on the assumption that sharing scholarly work with the widest possible audience is a central goal of scholarly communities. Costs imposed by third parties that stand between those who create scholarly work and those who seek to read and view it should not be a barrier to accessing that work. This is particularly the case for scholars affiliated with institutions that lack funding to provide access to commercial databases, subscription-based journals, and books released through traditional commercial models. With this in mind, these principles offer guidance on how to develop and disseminate high-quality, open-access scholarly work and argue, in essence, that scholars, institutions, and professional organizations should play a central role in supporting high-quality open-access scholarly publishing.
The following principles are also informed by the values that shape the work of many publishers regardless of whether they focus on open-access publishing or traditional commercial publishing. These values are articulated well in the statement issued by University-Based Publishing Futures: supporting proven and innovative approaches to publishing, advancing equitable access to publication opportunities for all scholars, working toward the widest possible circulation of scholarly work, ensuring that published work is accessible to all readers and viewers regardless of ability, supporting free and open inquiry, and adhering to high standards for publishing ethics and integrity.
1. Publishers
Principle 1.1. Publishers should, whenever financially possible, make scholarly work available in open-access formats.
The goal of scholarly publishing—regardless of whether the publisher operates as a commercial profit-oriented organization, as a non-profit organization, or as a publishing collaborative—is to make high-quality scholarship available to readers. Publishing work in open-access formats ensures the largest possible audience for the work. While financial concerns must be taken into account—and publishers should not be asked to engage in practices that threaten their existence—publishers should consider how they might accomplish the goal of expanding the audiences for their publications through the adoption of strategies that support unrestricted access to that work.
Principle 1.2. Copyright for open-access publications should reside with the author.
Publishers have long relied on the transfer of copyright from author to publisher as a means of ensuring work is not republished by other publishers and of obtaining funds through permission agreements. Publishers should consider whether this practice remains necessary and, if not, should ensure that authors retain copyright for their work. Contracts, for example, can specify whether permission fees should be paid to the publisher, the author, or both without requiring the author to transfer copyright.
Principle 1.3. Publishers should inform authors about options for licensing their work.
Publishers should offer authors the option to release their work through licenses such as those created by Creative Commons. Authors should be the final arbiters of whether their work can be republished, repurposed, reused, or remixed.
Principle 1.4. Publishers should ensure that peer-review and editorial development of work intended to be made available in open-access formats follows best practices for those activities.
Virtually all leading academic publishers rely on the voluntary contributions of time by scholars for the acquisition of new work and its review and development. The work involved in the publication of scholarly work in open-access formats should involve adherence to the best practices for these activities. This includes following best practices on ethical matters, errors, and retractions; fostering transparency and openness throughout the publishing cycle; encouraging representation across cultures, backgrounds, and viewpoints; and employing practices that work against racism, sexism, ableism, and other forms of exclusion.
Principle 1.5. The production of scholarly work intended to be made available in open-access formats should be carried out in a manner indistinguishable from the best practices of traditional scholarly publishing.
Open-access publications should be indistinguishable in structure and design quality from those published by traditional scholarly publishers. The decision to release a work in open-access formats should not diminish the use of best practices during copyediting, proofing, design, production, and distribution of the work.
Principle 1.6. Accessibility should be a key concern during the design and production of open-access publications.
Because open-access works are typically made available in digital formats, accessibility concerns are critical to the ability of all readers to access the work. Screen reader technologies, for example, are frequently updated, as are published standards for the creation of accessible documents. Publishers should consider the needs of all readers and viewers (especially those who are differently abled or neurodiverse) and follow best practices for the production and dissemination of accessible documents.
Principle 1.7. Publishers should ensure that open-access scholarly work remains available on a long-term basis.
Because open-access works are typically made available in digital formats, they can remain available for the long term. If a journal ceases production, for example, its archives should remain available—regardless of whether its articles were released on a subscription or open-access basis. Similarly, books that are no longer available in print or commercial digital editions should remain (or be made) available in open-access formats.
Principle 1.8. Publishers should ensure that open-access scholarly work remains accessible on a long-term basis.
As methods of distributing digital work change over time, publishers should ensure that work remains accessible to readers who access that work with the aid of screen readers. As technology changes, documents produced in older digital formats may need to be updated to conform to new accessibility standards.
Principle 1.9. Publishers should register open-access publications in a manner consistent with their registration of other publications.
If a publisher registers a work through a DOI provider, an ISBN provider, and/or the Library of Congress, it should do so for open-access works. Indeed, it should do so for all works.
Principle 1.10. Publishers should inform potential readers of the availability of new publications.
It is insufficient to simply publish work and expect readers to find it. To support the goal of scholars to advance knowledge, publishers should announce new publications and regularly share news about existing relevant work.
Principle 1.11. Access to publication should not be constrained by a scholar’s ability to pay subventions to publishers.
The model of subvention fees was developed to help ensure that publishers could remain solvent when work is released in ways that do not generate subscription fees or sales revenue. Some publishers have shifted from viewing subventions as a cost-recovery strategy to viewing them as a profit center. The resulting high subvention fees constrain the ability of some scholars to publish in venues that would otherwise view their work as of sufficient quality to accept. For example, a scholar doing innovative work that is not funded by a grant might find it difficult to obtain institutional funding for a subvention, particularly if they are at a smaller college or university that operates on a tight budget. The scholar might find that their only options involve using personal funds to pay the subvention or sending their work to another publication venue.
Principle 1.12. Releasing work in open-access editions need not preclude the publication of commercial editions of the work.
Publication of work in open-access and commercial print editions creates intellectual capital for authors and publishers, which is not insignificant and has value. It draws attention to other work on the publisher's list, demonstrates commitment to making high quality scholarly work widely available (see Principle 1.1), and broadens the readership a publisher reaches. The wide availability of open-access books, for example, increases the audience for those books and, by extension, can lead to purchases of print editions by readers who seek to expand their personal libraries.
Principle 1.13. Releasing work in open-access editions need not require the payment of royalties to authors.
While some publications, notably books, released for sale typically involve payment of royalties to authors, the release of such works in open-access forms typically do not generate revenue that will justify a royalty payment. If such works are also released in commercial formats, such as the print editions of open-access books discussed in Principle 1.12, any proceeds from sales can be applied to the development, production, and distribution of subsequent open-access works.
Principle 1.14. Publishers focused on open-access publishing should explore partnerships with traditional academic publishers, academic institutions, and professional organizations.
Leveraging the experience, expertise, and resources of traditional academic publishers (i.e., those that rely heavily on sales of print books and/or subscriptions for journals) allows those who are new to open-access publishing to avoid re-inventing processes that have long proven successful in the publishing industry. Traditional academic publishers can serve as outlets for print editions of open-access books and journals, and they can provide guidance in the development of processes for acquisition, review, development, design, production, registration, and distribution. In turn, innovations developed by open-access publishers—who bring new insights to the publishing enterprise—can benefit traditional academic publishers who partner with open-access publishers. Partnerships between open-access publishers and academic institutions can provide needed support to the publisher in the form of office space, software, web servers, technical and library support, and funding (among other benefits) while enhancing the institution’s reputation and outreach efforts. Partnerships between open-access publishers and professional organizations can provide needed support to the publisher in the form of funding and expertise (particularly in the case of organizations that support a publishing arm) while supporting the organization’s efforts to pursue its mission and provide benefits to its members.
Principle 1.15. Publishers should develop sustainability plans that account for the costs and affordances of publishing open-access work.
The dominant model of academic publishing over the past two centuries has been shaped by a funding mix of sales revenue and institutional support. Open-access publishers can also turn to support in the form of donations and micro-payments (transactions that involve small amounts of funds and typically occur digitally). The ethos established by providing free access to high-quality scholarly publications provides a foundation for seeking funding from those who benefit from access to the work.
2. Editors and Reviewers
Principle 2.1. Editors should inform authors about options for licensing their work.
Editors should inform authors about options for releasing their work through licenses such as those created by Creative Commons. Authors should be the final arbiters of whether their work can be republished, repurposed, reused, or remixed.
Principle 2.2. Open-access publications should be held to ethical standards consistent with recognized editorial best practices.
Carrying out editorial review and development of work intended for release in open-access formats should not entail a reduction in attention to acquisition, peer review, and editorial development. The editorial processes involved in the publication of scholarly work in open-access formats should involve adherence to best practices for these activities. This includes following best practices on ethical matters, errors, and retractions; fostering transparency and openness throughout the publishing cycle; encouraging representation across cultures, backgrounds, and viewpoints; and employing practices that work against racism, sexism, ableism, and other forms of exclusion.
Principle 2.3. Accessibility should be a key concern during the development of open-access publications.
Because open-access works are typically made available in digital formats, accessibility concerns are critical to the ability of all readers to access the work (see Principle 1.6). Screen reader technologies, for example, are frequently updated, as are published standards for the creation of accessible documents. Editors should encourage authors to be aware of and compliant with the best standards for the creation of accessible documents.
Principle 2.4. Editorial decisions should not take into account an author’s ability to pay a subvention fee to the publisher.
Subvention fees were developed to help ensure that publishers could remain solvent when work is released in ways that do not generate subscription fees. A scholar’s ability to pay a subvention fee should not be considered during decisions about whether to accept or reject a submission to a journal, book series, or other publication venue.
4. Readers
Principle 4.1. Readers of open-access scholarly work should apply the same evaluative criteria to the publisher of that work as they would to traditional publishers.
As is the case with traditional publishers, open-access publishers can vary widely in their attention to high-quality review, development, and production of scholarly work. While the benefits of making work available in open-access formats are clear, readers of open-access publications should consider whether and, if so, how well the publisher has followed best practices for scholarly publishing. This includes attention to ethical matters, errors, and retractions; representation across cultures, backgrounds, and viewpoints; and practices that work against racism, sexism, ableism, and other forms of exclusion.
Principle 4.2. Readers of open-access scholarly work should be aware that open-access publishers who do not charge subvention fees typically rely on the volunteer efforts and financial support of numerous members of the scholarly community.
The effort and resources required to produce high-quality open-access scholarly publications is substantial. Readers should be aware that the time, effort, and financial contributions of individuals and sponsoring institutions and organizations make it possible for publishers who charge no or low subvention fees to make open-access scholarly work available freely and widely.
Principle 4.3. Readers who benefit from open-access scholarly work should become aware of the affordances of this means of distributing scholarly work.
Because open-access publishing is grounded in values of access to knowledge, there is an opportunity not only to learn from the published content itself but also to benefit from the means through which it is distributed to readers. Readers should seek to understand both the efforts involved in making open-access scholarly work available and the value those efforts provide to both individuals and the larger scholarly community.
Principle 4.4. Readers who benefit from open-access scholarly work should consider their own potential contributions of time, expertise, and/or funding to the publishing endeavor.
The cumulative efforts of large groups of scholars have profound effects on the quality and availability of open-access scholarly work. Contributing time, effort, and/or funding to an open-access publishing project—no matter how “small” that contribution might seem to the individual making it—provides the basis for a potentially much larger collective effort that benefits the scholarly community.
5. Members of Faculty Performance Review Committees
Principle 5.1. Members of review committees should consider the quality of all publication venues, including open-access venues.
Members of review committees are likely to be familiar with the quality and reputation of traditional publication venues, particularly when they are long-established and highly reputable. This may not be the case with open-access publication venues, many of which have been established in the last decade. Committee members should consider the qualifications of the venue’s editorial staff, editorial board, and editorial review process—regardless of whether the venue is well-established or relatively new. Most importantly, they should avoid using reputation as a stand-in for a careful analysis of quality.
Principle 5.2. Members of review committees should consider the circulation of scholarly works as part of their evaluation of a work’s impact.
In addition to considering factors such as journal impact factors, members of review committees should consider the circulation of a work. A common statistic used to assess circulation is the number of downloads of a given work. In general, works released in open-access digital formats have larger circulations than works released in print or through proprietary, subscription-based databases. The typical press run for a scholarly book, for example, is less than 1,000, while books released in digital open-access editions often see downloads that run into the tens or hundreds of thousands. That said, downloading a work does not mean it will be read. Like a book that is purchased and placed on a bookshelf without being read, a downloaded book or article might take up space on a drive without ever being opened. But it is also true that large numbers of downloads indicate both interest in the work and a high likelihood that it will be read and eventually cited in other publications.
Principle 5.3. Members of review committees should consider the citation of scholarly works.
In keeping with the comparatively higher circulation of works released in open-access digital formats, numerous studies have found that these works generally have comparatively high citation rates. In this sense, open-access publications are more likely to influence the field than are works released through subscription-based venues, proprietary databases, and print book series.
Principle 5.4. Members of review committees should avoid using rejection rates as a significant factor in evaluating the scholarly quality of works published in open-access publication venues.
A high rejection rate for a scholarly journal or book series is sometimes viewed as an indicator that work published in that venue is of high quality. This is a reasonable assumption when publication decisions are based on exemplary peer reviews and editorial decisions of large numbers of submissions. For two reasons, however, it may not apply well to work published in open-access publication venues. First, if a given open-access journal or book series focuses on a highly specialized topic area, it might receive a relatively low number of high-quality submissions and potentially have a low rejection rate. Second, if a given open-access journal or book series publishes only in digital formats, it avoids some of the costs associated with publishing in print–and thus makes page limits less of a concern for the publisher. In these cases, rejection rates viewed in isolation may not be a good indicator of the quality of a scholarly work published in an open-access publication.
Principle 5.5. Members of review committees should consider the impact of high subvention fees on access to leading scholarly publication venues.
When evaluating a scholar’s choice of publication venue, be aware that some publication venues charge high subvention fees that can serve as a barrier against submission. This is particularly problematic for scholars whose work is of high quality but who lack access to institutional or grant-based funding to pay for these fees. With some fees set at more than $10,000 per journal article or scholarly book, for example, the decision regarding where to submit a promising work can be shaped by factors beyond the quality of the work and its fit with a journal or book series.
Principle 5.6. Members of review committees should examine and, if appropriate, work to revise evaluation criteria to account for the value of releasing work in open-access formats
Members of review committees should consider the distinctive affordances of open-access publishing and update the criteria used to assess scholarly work. In particular, members should consider whether there are benefits in choosing open-access publishing venues over publication venues that operate on a for-profit basis.
Principle 5.7 Members of review committees should work with colleagues and administrators to increase awareness of the value of releasing work in open-access formats.
Along with efforts by members of review committees to deepen their knowledge of the affordances of open-access publication, they should work to increase awareness of those affordances among their colleagues and, in particular, among administrators and others who are in positions that involve making judgments about salary increases, promotions, long-term security of employment, and/or tenure. This should include efforts to revise institutional governing documents—and, ultimately, institutional rewards structures—in ways that address the value of publishing work in open-access formats.
6. Institutions
Principle 6.1. Institutions should support the growth of high-quality open-access publishing venues.
Historically, universities and colleges have played a central role in scholarly publishing. The growth over the past century of large commercial publishers and database providers has tilted the landscape toward commercial publishing ventures and away from university-based publishing efforts. This has resulted in financial challenges—largely the result of redirected funds toward those commercial ventures—that have led to the closing or consolidation of university presses. It has also provided scholars with the motivation to embrace new technologies that allow the publication of scholarly work in open-access formats. Institutions should view open-access publishing as an opportunity to regain their foothold in the scholarly publishing enterprise and, with this in mind, should identify strategies and funding sources that can support the growth and ensure the quality of works released as open-access publications.
Principle 6.2. Institutions should encourage their faculty to recognize the distinctive contributions to scholarly exchange made by open-access publications.
Institutional leaders should work with their faculty to increase awareness of the distinctive affordances of open-access publishing and encourage, through funding initiatives and updates to institutional governing documents, submission to high-quality open-access publishing venues.
Principle 6.3. Institutions should value the work required to produce open-access publications.
Developing and sustaining open-access publishing venues should be recognized as distinctive contributions to the advancement of knowledge. Whether it is labeled as curation, editorial development, or some other term, the work of designing, producing, and distributing scholarly work should be valued and rewarded. Institutional leaders should encourage the establishment of institution-wide guidelines for recognizing, valuing, and rewarding this work.
Principle 6.4. Institutions should redirect funds from subscriptions to high-cost journals and proprietary databases and toward open-access publishing venues.
Given the growth of subscriptions to journals and databases over the past three decades and the impact on library holdings as a result of necessary redirection of funds over that time, institutions should consider the financial benefits of increasing the number of high-quality open-access publishing venues. By relying in the same way as commercial publishers on the voluntary contributions of faculty members to acquire, review, and develop publications, universities can substantially reduce their dependence on a small number of industry leading commercial publishers and shift those investments to the development of a robust group of well-regarded and high-quality open-access publishers.
Principle 6.5. Institutions should encourage the university presses they support to embrace open-access publishing.
In keeping with Principle 6.4, institutions should encourage the adoption of open-access publishing models by the university presses they support. As appropriate, they should redirect funds from commercial publishers toward presses that shift to open-access publishing.
7. Professional Organizations
Principle 7.1. Professional organizations should recognize work to establish and sustain open-access publishing.
Professional organizations play a significant role in shaping the reward structures that govern the evaluation of faculty productivity in a given field. In general, these reward structures value scholarly publication, teaching, and service to the institution, the profession, and the community. As open-access publishing becomes an increasingly important option for the distribution of scholarly work, the work of developing and sustaining open-access publishing venues should be recognized as a distinctive contribution to the field. Because it shapes the work of so many scholars and because that work advances knowledge in a given field, the work of designing, producing, and distributing scholarly work should be recognized as a distinctive and valued contribution to the field. Whether it is labeled as curation, editorial development, or some other term, this work should be valued and rewarded. Professional organizations should play a leading role in advocating for its recognition during performance reviews.
Principle 7.2. Professional organizations should pursue partnerships with open-access publishers.
It used to be the case (and in some cases still is) that a key driver of membership in a professional organization was access to the organization’s journals as well as, in some cases, to discounts on book sales. For the most part, this has declined as a driver of organizational membership. Yet providing publication venues for their members continues to be a goal of many professional organizations. Open-access publishing provides a cost-effective means of achieving that goal. With this in mind, professional organizations should assess potential open-access publishing venues in their field and, as appropriate, enter into partnerships that advance their organizational goals.
Principle 7.3. Professional organizations should recognize differences in the financial resources available to open-access publishers.
The cost of advertising in journals and on websites published by professional organizations can work against the ability of open-access publishers to share news of new publications with members of that organization. Similarly, the cost of exhibiting at conferences presented by professional organizations can preclude small open-access publishers from promoting their publications. Professional organizations should develop pricing plans that allow open-access publishers to share news about their publications with members of the organization.
Contributors
The following individuals have contributed to the development of this statement.
Mike Palmquist, Colorado State University; Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Chris Basgier, Auburn University; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Ann Blakeslee, Eastern Michigan University; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Heather Falconer, University of Maine; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Karen Peirce, KPP Communications; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Michael Pemberton, Georgia Southern University; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Kristen Welch, Spartanburg Methodist College; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Asao Inoue, Arizona State University
David Blakesley, Clemson University; Publisher, Parlor Press
Cheryl E. Ball, Cheryl Ball LLC, Kairos
Doug Eyman, George Mason University, Kairos
Caleb González, University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley
Halle M. Neiderman, American University of Beirut
Rich Rice, Texas Tech University
Shane Wood, University of Central Florida
Norbert Elliot, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Jill Dahlman, California Northstate University
Endorsers
The following individuals and organizations endorse the principles put forth in this document.
The WAC Clearinghouse
Mike Palmquist, Colorado State University; Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Christopher Basgier, Auburn University; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Ann Blakeslee, Eastern Michigan University; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Heather M. Falconer, University of Maine; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Lindsey Harding, University of Georgia; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Rebecca Hallman Martini, University of Georgia; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Susan Wolff Murphy, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Lee Nickoson, Bowling Green State University; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Karen P. Peirce, KPP Communications; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Michael Pemberton, Georgia Southern University; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Kristen Welch, Spartanburg Methodist College; Associate Publisher, The WAC Clearinghouse
Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy
Doug Eyman, George Mason University, Kairos
Cheryl E. Ball, Cheryl Ball LLC, Kairos
Asao Inoue, Arizona State University
Justin Rademaekers, West Chester University
Dana Lynn Driscoll, Indiana University of Pennsylvania
Norbert Elliot, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Dan Melzer, University of California, Davis
Rich Rice, Texas Tech University
David Blakesley, Clemson University; Publisher, Parlor Press
Caleb González, University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley
Carl Whithaus, University of California, Davis
Genie Nicole Giaimo, Hofstra University
J. Michael Rifenburg, University of North Georgia
Pamela Childers, The McCallie School
Luuk Van Waes, Universiteit Antwerpen
Hannah Taylor, Duke University
Halle M. Neiderman, American University of Beirut, on behalf of MENA Writing Studies
Justin Hayes, Quinnipiac University
Michael J. Faris, Chair and Professor, Department of English, Texas Tech University
Charles Bazerman, University of California, Santa Barbara
Susan H. McLeod, University of California, Santa Barbara
Norbert Elliot, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Aimee Taylor, Clarke University
Susan E. Thomas, The University of Sydney
Chris Thaiss, University of California, Davis
Sue Doe, Colorado State University