How should authors ensure they are meeting compliance requirements so that the publication can be made publicly available on the Official Date of Publication?
Submitting the AAM upon acceptance (as required) should aid in compliance as it gives authors time to submitted the AAM prior to the Official Date of Publication at which time, NIH will make it publicly available.
Researchers are currently signing agreements with publishers for publications that may be released after July 1. These agreements might still contain year-long embargo provisions that conflict with the new NIH policy. Is this a valid concern based on what you are seeing?
The NIH revision of policy NOT-OD-25-101 states that “Author Accepted Manuscripts […] with acceptance dates on or after July 1, 2025, are subject to the Policy.” If an author signs a publisher agreement that includes a one-year embargo before July 1st, and the article is accepted on or after July 1st, then the publisher agreement and NIH requirements are indeed in direct conflict. This is a realistic problem given some publishers’ workflows where, for example, they require authors to agree and select up-front, upon submission, how they would like their article published (open access or not), which can occur months before actual acceptance of the article. But to be clear, neither the funding date nor the submission date impacts the applicability of the policy—the policy only applies to articles accepted on or after July 1. (Authors Alliance, 2025)
What will happen for authors who want to publish with journals that do not allow for zero-embargo deposit of articles they publish?
Major publishers like Elsevier and Springer Nature currently require embargoes on public access deposits and are unlikely to change policies for the NIH’s July 1 mandate, which requires immediate deposit. This creates tension: NIH grants immediate deposit rights, but publishers may reject such submissions or require authors to pay for open access. Authors may be steered toward paid options, as seen with Plan S, risking delays or lost effort if funds are unavailable. Authors should carefully review publisher policies before submitting.
Some publishers are rolling out new fees for publication of articles that are subject to funder or institutional deposit requirements. Must authors pay these fees to comply with their grants?
Many open access (OA) journals have long charged article processing fees (APCs), aligning with funder requirements like those from NIH. However, some publishers now impose new fees for depositing articles in public repositories. For example, ACS charges \$2,500 under an “Article Development Charge” when authors don’t opt for gold OA and lack institutional agreements. IEEE introduced a \$1,275 “repository license fee,” though it generally doesn't apply to U.S. federal funders like NIH. These emerging fees have caused confusion, and enforcement remains uncertain. Authors without funding support may have limited options and should review journal policies carefully before submitting.
Do any publishers allow for zero-embargo deposit without paying an additional open access or publication fee?
Many publishers permit zero-embargo deposit without fees. Tools like the JISC open policy finder help authors verify policies. Major publishers like Sage and AAAS explicitly allow immediate public access to Author Accepted Manuscripts. Others, like Wiley, appear less clear—though their standard agreements acknowledge U.S. government rights to share federally funded research, suggesting authors can still comply with NIH requirements.
What if an author mistakenly agrees to a publication agreement that purports to restrict their ability to comply with federal public access requirements?
Many authors find publisher policies on public access confusing or misleading, often presented via quick-click agreements that discourage close review. This raises the risk of signing terms that appear to conflict with grant obligations. However, federal agencies like NIH retain a pre-existing license to share funded research, overriding publisher agreements. Thus, authors are unlikely to breach grant terms by signing such contracts. Still, authors must ensure deposit compliance themselves. While publishers may stop depositing articles on behalf of authors, they have limited ability to block authors or funders from sharing articles through authorized repositories.
What happens if an author (or their institution) finds themselves in a conflict with a publisher insistent on enforcing contractual rights to control distribution of the article?
Publishers may enforce open access compliance by demanding payment from authors, likely the most common approach. If authors refuse to pay, possible—though unlikely—responses include article retraction, future submission bans, or takedown notices to funder repositories. Legal action against authors is also unlikely, as it risks damaging publisher-author relationships and would likely yield minimal financial recovery. Overall, while publishers may test compliance, aggressive enforcement poses reputational and legal risks for them.
How can institutions proactively protect themselves and their authors from risk, either from grant agencies or publishers?
The best way to manage compliance risk is through clear guidance from universities and federal agencies. Authors can reduce risk by: choosing publishers that allow zero-embargo deposit (via green OA policies); publishing in fully open access or diamond OA journals; using institutional OA agreements; and budgeting for article processing charges (APCs), which NIH allows as grant expenses.
How can Institutions support authors who find themselves in conflict with publisher policies?
Authors unaware of NIH compliance requirements may face unexpected fees from publishers for zero-embargo deposit, even if they lack grant or institutional support. Because most publishing agreements are non-negotiable click-throughs, authors have little leverage to alter terms. Institutions should proactively clarify publisher policies, educate authors on choosing compliant journals, encourage budgeting for open access, and promote use of institutional or diamond OA options. Depositing in university repositories is also recommended, given uncertainty around long-term federal repository access. Importantly, NIH already holds rights to public sharing via grant terms, regardless of publisher contracts, limiting publisher enforcement against compliant deposit.
Note: FAQs on this page were adapted from The NIH Public Access Policy: Q&A for Authors by The Authors Alliance. Unless otherwise indicated, answers to the questions where summarized using an AI tool. For the full, detailed responses from the Authors Alliance, please visit the above article link.